Re: [btns] Q: How to deal with connection latch breaks?

Julien Laganier <julien.laganier.ietf@googlemail.com> Mon, 20 July 2009 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.laganier.ietf@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: btns@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: btns@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8273A6A74 for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vxbxlH2MiKwU for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617D628C233 for <btns@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so2170480fxm.37 for <btns@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A/O79gSn8VS/c6qPDNsCbZvuI/W6BvUHpdYGBkuTkCE=; b=wX0hOC3T0uVw5VKAb3CNIyxuWruQJYUIC+m/aIH48FPGVaBhvU2BndHOZnGhuyFE6k y2hWTBpBxxAF0ULChiZS77u5rkfKY6Vr/regskrjCxE2jnnZYBxMwGg3nB+X3moo77km iPV4mTJwG560iv1CplOQHcEvdVxb7ZMMojs6s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UuAWMRJh6T4kJd6SAKBmm/7PqC/8PwYszS0E+Z3ueikkPFs8VRBFVOjkE/u+8FoPnw OUlvEtaE+anJGA2OsL3s7BXmMDqoA2gdQ+a3e1qF4D/Rc53k2v7zje7Qymz9aFQJoBol F91BhgNQ84dNdp3tcITS0eTs3V9OblTSKnhk0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.117.203 with SMTP id s11mr4424585bkq.153.1248116633899; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <560cfa55891f0b72ce284f1454fa5d50.squirrel@webmail.eisler.com>
References: <e2cf27e98757db0c8561baadfb3ca335.squirrel@webmail.eisler.com> <26232.1247424864@marajade.sandelman.ca> <560cfa55891f0b72ce284f1454fa5d50.squirrel@webmail.eisler.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:03:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7ad6d6db0907201203y12cc245al767b1cc9114ea618@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.laganier.ietf@googlemail.com>
To: Mike Eisler <mre-ietf@eisler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: btns@ietf.org, lars.eggert@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [btns] Q: How to deal with connection latch breaks?
X-BeenThere: btns@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Better-Than-Nothing-Security Working Group discussion list <btns.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns>, <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/btns>
List-Post: <mailto:btns@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns>, <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:04:07 -0000

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Mike Eisler<mre-ietf@eisler.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, July 12, 2009 11:54 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Eisler <mre-ietf@eisler.com> writes:
>>     >> The last DISCUSS on draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-10
>>     >> concerns what the WG thinks is the best way for ULPs to handle
>>     >> connection latch transitions to the BROKEN state in the _absence_
>>     >> of connection latching APIs for applications (or when apps are
>>     >> not aware of such APIs).
>>
>>     Mike> Isn't this DISCUSS specific to SCTP?
>>
>>   I don't think so.
>>   I think it's just that SCTP tries to get around other network
>> connection failures by switching to working end-points, while TCP and
>> UDP do not, so those applications are already more suspectible to
>> network failures.
>
> My point was that because SCTP gets around connection drops, and TCP
> doesn't, the issue is specific to TCP. Apps that use TCP are used
> to TCP dropping connections. Apps that use SCTP are not used a total
> failure because of the "get around" behavior of SCTP.
>
>>   (First, if you are using channel binding, then you have to be aware of
>> it, so it is possible that we haven't thought through the non-channel
>> binding case well enough)
>>
>>     Mike> I am unsure that the SCTP section defines behavior which is
>>     Mike> consistent with application expectations.  The last paragraph
>>     Mike> of 5.4 implies that the whole connection terminates if one of
>>     Mike> the latches breaks.  This has an impact on the semantics of
>>     Mike> the application socket API.  While connection latching is
>>     Mike> transparent when everything is working, there are new failures
>>     Mike> that ripple to the application.  That is, the application will
>>     Mike> observe different behavior on a connection with and without
>>     Mike> latching.
>
> Note that above is the content of the IESG DISCUSS from Russ.
>
>>
>>   I agree that this is the case for SCTP.
>>   For TCP, it looks like a normal network failure, do you agree?
>
> I agree. Hence the DISCUSS looks specific to SCTP to me.

I think that's indeed the case.

>>   I think that how the latch breaks when the SA breaks depends upon
>> whether there are in fact multiple SAs, (the simple NxM approach), or if
>> the connection latch object is represented as a the N+M object, with
>> underlying SAs negotiated as needed.
>>
>>     Mike> Perhaps the second approach is what should be used for
>>     Mike> SCTP. However, as the last sentence above notes, the first
>>     Mike> approach is used in the rest of the document. I gather what
>>     Mike> Russ is saying is that approach might not be appropriate for
>>     Mike> SCTP and he wants to know if the WG thoroughly considered it.
>>
>>   I think that we did not consider it enough.
>
> Fair enough. So given that, perhaps connection latching for SCTP
> should be deferred to another work item?

IIRC, as a result from requesting publication we were asked (during
IETF LC, maybe as a TSV directorate review) to cover SCTP and not only
TCP and UDP. So while we maybe didn't considered all the implications
of specifying SCTP behavior, it is my understanding that not covering
it is not an option on the table.

--julien