Re: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Sun, 02 February 2014 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28EC1A00DE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 07:07:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bqQE2BjDEewK for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 07:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-x22d.google.com (mail-ea0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA781A00D9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 07:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d10so3255772eaj.4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:07:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cuV1zWS3ppUpnO44hYli3nt9bnsyarxMS/sB6PsIUt4=; b=OOpNKn9HNAUZrLSpAqF/WIYO0i5Q7eB3zDBlLGWQMihFJNez/up49IGdB6lEddDjqw PmcBME9yDaxP4pYqftp8zEDgsO6c7j1pLLK2r9RpXDs9fack3Kiv2S40EY+b4JVI/uH3 NKgyEz/63cloxglkcfSO1AO+EDEM6wByhyVM0hXaruO2acu0L9C8ZPm24MrN4OxhY3IM hrVwo5rt0IwY20TQ7ls5TIdvdErY6JVcb1wnvXAwXC7kWXkLXcZ0gVSg3TcIKWh4QBp+ 3EG3h5j3itjbNJbXfY1T2PWob8I61cPJmf9FdruGMLPJa/jCS5GNlwPcfmyIv8NMYZs2 iOhQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.179.73 with SMTP id g49mr2000434eem.71.1391353673506; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 46sm62775274ees.4.2014.02.02.07.07.52 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52EE6D56.4090908@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:07:50 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
References: <52EBC3EA.1020104@innovationslab.net> <CFA19E62-0F9A-4358-AB7C-E4A910BF4874@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFA19E62-0F9A-4358-AB7C-E4A910BF4874@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20140202170750734
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:08:00 -0000

On 02.02.2014 14:33, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> 5. Also from Ralph... Could section 5 simply be written as "A client or
>> server MUST silently discard any received DHCPv6 message with an unknown
>> message type."?
> 
> Yes, I think this is a good edit.
I would extend the text a bit with "The server or client MAY log the
fact.". Silently dropping a message that is typically network setup
problem may hide problems and make their debugging harder.

If you configured your relay to send message X, but your server is not
capable of understanding it, then why did you configure your relay to
send it in the first place? Also, if your network has clients that send
message Y and your server does not know what to do with it, perhaps its
time upgrade your server? Or forbid those particular clients if that new
behavior is not welcome in a given network.

On the other hand, some people may afraid that their server could be
spammed with messages of bogus type and filling in syslog with useless
junk. Given those two arguments, MAY seems like a good compromise for
the logging.

Tomek