[dhcwg] Re: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis: normative language, IA Address and option-len

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 10 May 2024 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4A8C14F681 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oVoj2VfK5E9Y for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6F4C14F61F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [75.98.19.152]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2E91F480 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2024 18:07:51 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="J4vXONYh"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 25EAEA1A23; Fri, 10 May 2024 14:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1715364469; bh=qGEAGb5Mc/LLHZtGRSNlT7tip9G+N/LP+30VyITLk0g=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=J4vXONYhTHK7MDoaWU1ate17c9zbXHLvGMfLUvY1ZUkz02vGoi+5MiPVSjYaYnD4S EP5KB2W7hoQxg9RHhCApWKnXiWocjvbnNJzrWfV6l+G1k/tTVvx3GG2nUPGmlRJAFS VI1CNbN7sohcxsBeExoYG8yLATa9wJYLDfPEzIC0govvy5X+5pbdnZhISzvy6iWDK9 D4/zo98BoOlt8JOhaMFTCdKW0NUgE39Fnt5nIM3ncGeexM4v4CHvLjFYeQlzq3cDYC ESTnV50XgtMgvZHPu9UDTpJmpFqpXXyi52S76KF8rm64Bs6u18eTG8XoIGWkRlvcHq VpX/J9NIyJS1w==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2396BA19FF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2024 14:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <5BA53A14-028C-4BD7-B6AA-F728393B3752@gmail.com>
References: <CAFU7BARhGJE-LrAE+qpx8yZehKpAEZeWEbcqERtj6oGywWOp0A@mail.gmail.com> <5BA53A14-028C-4BD7-B6AA-F728393B3752@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> message dated "Fri, 10 May 2024 06:46:54 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 14:07:49 -0400
Message-ID: <1955919.1715364469@dyas>
Message-ID-Hash: Q4YOPXCPQDRHQATE5IXJRDKKXTL6F36J
X-Message-ID-Hash: Q4YOPXCPQDRHQATE5IXJRDKKXTL6F36J
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dhcwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis: normative language, IA Address and option-len
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/kN4KuaQrFsERaUrr_nugtYMdVbk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dhcwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dhcwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dhcwg-leave@ietf.org>

Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Maybe we replace:

...

    > With:

    > 21.6.  IA Address Option

    > The IA Address option is used to specify an address, usually
    > associated with an IA_NA and encapsulated in the
    > IA_NA-options field of an IA_NA option (see Section 21.4).  The
    > IAaddr-options field encapsulates those options that are specific to
    > this address.

Works for me.

    > I don’t believe we have any uses for IAPREFIX options outside of IA_PD,
    > but we could consider similar change there (21.22)? Odd that that

Seems prudent.

    > section doesn’t mention IAprefix-options field. (Leasequery doesn’t
    > allow a query by prefix as query by address is sufficient - the query
    > returns either IA_NA with IAAddr or IA_PD with IAPrefix.)

    > —

    > That does bring up an interesting point … what should leasequery do if
    > queried for a registered address? Just return the IAAddr without IA_NA
    > or manufacture a “fake” IA_NA (perhaps with IAID 0 and adding the
    > OPTION_ADDR_REG_ENABLE option in the IAAddr-options field to notify
    > querier that this is a self registered address). We should address this
    > — same concept can be used for failover (RFC8156).

I guess. I don't know much about leasequery.

    > —

    > Regarding your point of validation of option lengths we generally chose
    > not to require that except of course that an option must at least be
    > the “minimum” length (many options are variable length and unknown
    > options are just that). So if your zero-length option is not that, it
    > really does little harm (except wasting bytes). Yes, it might mean that
    > the option is not really correct and some implementation may have
    > hijacked that option number for a different purpose which could result
    > in unexpected behavoir.

+1

    > Note that we do have text in section 16 about message validity - and
    > that includes that the messages are encoded correctly - no extra bytes
    > at end (i.e., incomplete option-code + length) or missing bytes at end
    > of message (last option is too short for specified option length).


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*