RE: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments

Hi Mallikarjun,

The penny drops! Adding that clarification would be excellent.

Thanks,
Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2006 08:21
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Ips] DRAFT Montreal minutes - 
> X#NodeArchitecture comments
> 
> When I read 3720, it is clear to me that the first processing 
> rule is about comprehending the key. 
> Declarative vs. negotiated processing rules can only follow 
> comprehension - if an implementation does not recognize a 
> key, declarative vs. negotiated handling is moot.  A proposer 
> thus must always be prepared for the eventuality of lack of 
> comprehension by the other side, unless the key is defined in 
> 3720 itself.
> 
> But I now see that that's clearly not how you read it.
>  I will add some text along the above lines in the absence of 
> objections.
> 
> 
> Mallikarjun
> 
> 
> --- Paul Koning <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > >>>>> "Mallikarjun" == Mallikarjun C
> > <[email protected]> writes:
> > 
> >  Mallikarjun> Hi Paul, I am still not sure I see the "bug" in 3720.
> >  Mallikarjun> The text you cite is immediately preceded by this  
> > Mallikarjun> sentence in 3720:
> > 
> >  Mallikarjun> "However, the answer for a key not understood 
> MUST be  
> > Mallikarjun> key=NotUnderstood."
> > 
> >  Mallikarjun> This applies to *all* keys, negotiated or declarative.
> >  Mallikarjun> The "as described here" text you cite is reinforcing  
> > Mallikarjun> this universal applicability.
> > 
> > Consider the top of page 53.
> > 
> > For declarative keys, there IS no response.  An occurrence of a 
> > declarative key is always taken to be a declaration.
> >  And declarations
> > are not allowed to contain the value
> > "NotUnderstood".
> > 
> > The sentence you quoted ("the answer for a key not understood..."
> > implies that a not-understood key is assumed to be a 
> proposal, not a 
> > declaration, which matches my point 1.
> > 
> > The issue is that the rule at the top of page 53 is incomplete, 
> > because it doesn't cover the case of a not-understood key.  
> For those, 
> > a reply may appear though it wasn't expected (the protocol 
> says that 
> > there is no reply to declarations).  And that reply will have a 
> > NotUnderstood value, which isn't a legal declarer-value.
> > 
> >  Mallikarjun> Regarding your proposed #2, I am not sure a proposer  
> > Mallikarjun> should ever "silently ignore" a a "NotUnderstood"
> >  Mallikarjun> response.  A NotUnderstood response always has a  
> > Mallikarjun> semantic requirement on the proposer:
> > not to use
> >  Mallikarjun> protocol behavior associated with the key within the  
> > Mallikarjun> scope of the key (connection/session).
> > 
> > True for negotiations, but I don't see how declarative keys, 
> > especially optional ones, can have a semantic effect on the sender 
> > that depends on whether they are understood or not.
> > Certainly the
> > X#NodeArchitecture key doesn't.  I'd argue that a key that has 
> > semantic effects at the sending end must necessarily be a 
> negotiation 
> > key, not a declarative key, because declarations by definition can 
> > only affect actions taken by the recipient.
> > 
> >      paul
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
> around http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> 

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips