Re: DefaultTime2Retain Negotiation during Discovery Session

>>>>> "William" == William Studenmund <[email protected]> writes:

 William> On Aug 20, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Paul Hughes wrote:
 >> I think it's legal to terminate a login if a proposed key is not
 >> answered in the next login request/response (with exceptions for
 >> Boolean negotiations having optional responses).  I don't think
 >> RFC3720 states this explicitly, but this seems to indicate that
 >> initiators and targets should not delay answering a proposed key:
 >> 
 >> 5.2.  Text Mode Negotiation
 >> 
 >> A target or initiator SHOULD NOT use a Text or Login Response or
 >> Text or Login Request with no data segment (DataSegmentLength 0)
 >> unless explicitly required by a general or a key-specific
 >> negotiation rule.
 >> 
 >> My interpretation is that DefaultTime2Retain requires an answer
 >> and does not require an empty PDU request/response, therefore the
 >> acceptor must answer in the next login request/response.

 William> In the example we're talking about, I think terminating
 William> negotiation would be fine.

 William> The thing though is that the text above is a SHOULD NOT, not
 William> MUST NOT.  So there _could_ be a good reason for delaying. I
 William> can think of one, but I admit it's a corner case.

If the spec says a sender SHOULD NOT do X, then the receiving end is
NOT allowed to insist that the sender do X.  So that means that
terminating the negotiation would be a protocol violation, because it
produces a failure to interoperate with a conforming sender.

	 paul



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