Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag -14 and Block2

[[e-mail]]

Hi Christian,

Thanks for doing this.  The proposed changes work for me.

Regards

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Amsüss [mailto: [e-mail]]
> Sent: 31 January 2022 17:01
> To: Jon Shallow
> Cc: 'Carsten Bormann'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag -14 and Block2
> 
> Hello Jon, hello CoRE
> 
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 07:22:28PM -0000, Jon Shallow wrote:
> > Thanks for this.  I will go ahead using the Request-Tag in the request
> > in the potential case there is a response requiring Block2.
> 
> I've asked that this be altered in the currently open AUTH48 process;
> quoting:
> 
> > I support that change. The concrete text change I suggest is:
> >
> > OLD:
> > Note that Request-Tag options can be present in request messages that
> > carry no Block options (for example, because a proxy unaware of
> > Request-Tag reassembled them) and MUST be ignored in those.
> >
> > NEW:
> > Note that Request-Tag options can be present in request messages that
> > carry no Block options (for example, because a proxy unaware of
> > Request-Tag reassembled them). Clients may set them for purposes not
> > further discussed in this document.
> >
> > (The "MUST" was also slightly inexact; the server would still have
> > used them as part of the block-wise key in any later Block2 phase, but
> > it must not do anything more with it, as 3.3 already describes).
> >
> > OLD:
> > The Request-Tag option is only used in requests that carry the Block1
> > option and in Block2 requests following these.
> >
> > NEW:
> > The Request-Tag option is mainly used in requests that carry the
> > Block1 option and in Block2 requests following these.
> >
> > (The reader might follow with a thought like "although it may later
> > turn out that the operation was not as block-wise as the client had
> > anticipated", or even "and if it's only to disambiguate with a request
> > that is still ongoing and known to be block-wise", but that does not
> > need to be put in the document IMO).
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, it's a valuable change for a use case I did
not
> consider.
> 
> BR
> c
> 
> --
> To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater
powers.
>   -- Bene Gesserit axiom