[core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not just a security consideration
"core issue tracker" <trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 20 April 2012 15:37 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECE421F8766 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZFbA2-GVRa5O for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7F921F8731 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1SLFtR-0001CL-7c; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:37:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: core issue tracker <trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-core-observe@tools.ietf.org, cabo@tzi.org
X-Trac-Project: core
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:37:05 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/core/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/221
Message-ID: <051.96050ca332dbb50866094e054b75514d@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 221
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-core-observe@tools.ietf.org, cabo@tzi.org, core@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To:
Resent-Message-Id: <20120420153721.8D7F921F8731@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:37:21 -0700
Resent-From: trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: [core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not just a security consideration
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Reply-To: trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:37:22 -0000
#221: Occasionally sending CON is not just a security consideration
Cullen Jennings notes (msg03073a):
Imagine a server that always sends non confirmable requests. Does it send
forever? Even after client crashes and a new device that is not CoAP aware
gets the same IP address?
->
This is currently discussed in the security considerations, but only for
NoSec mode.
The need to at least occasionally intersperse CONs needs to be discussed
earlier (and explained in more detail, msg03073i).
Another reason for sending a CON at certain points:
Just sending NON for a long time does not guarantee eventual consistency.
--
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------
Reporter: cabo@… | Owner: draft-ietf-core-observe@…
Type: protocol defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: post-WGLC-1
Component: observe | Version: observe-05
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
-----------------------------+---------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/221>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>
- [core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not just… core issue tracker
- Re: [core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not … Cullen Jennings
- Re: [core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not … core issue tracker
- Re: [core] #221: Occasionally sending CON is not … core issue tracker