Re: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (5084)

"Priyatosh Mandal" <priyatos@cdot.in> Wed, 16 August 2017 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <priyatos@cdot.in>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23AB132491 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 ITISDnQPCfFt for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandesh.cdotd.ernet.in (unknown [196.1.105.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 86A6E13248F for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cdot.in (webmail.cdotd.ernet.in [196.1.105.198]) by sandesh.cdotd.ernet.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A201DDE0BC; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:08:56 +0530 (IST)
Received: from cdot.in (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cdot.in (8.14.7/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v7G3cuaX134931; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:08:56 +0530
From: "Priyatosh Mandal" <priyatos@cdot.in>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:08:56 +0530
Message-Id: <20170816033715.M45010@cdot.in>
In-Reply-To: <CADTSkb1574M34oBKk7vUisrOCfcA8LD59SCRqwq-DftuJGbi1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170811040456.E8570B81789@rfc-editor.org> <20170814041602.M44812@cdot.in> <20170814105124.5115986.90299.28199@sandvine.com> <20170814110558.M60858@cdot.in> <1efe047abe674df0acf2c82406abbbc7@plswe13m04.ad.sprint.com> <CADTSkb1574M34oBKk7vUisrOCfcA8LD59SCRqwq-DftuJGbi1Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: OpenWebMail 2.54
X-OriginatingIP: 196.1.110.232 (priyatos)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=OPENWEBMAIL_ATT_0.326737289640249"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/fOpqWc3sntVVvlbgOcSzpqpqRbQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:23:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (5084)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 03:40:04 -0000

Hello ,
Should I consider the Reported Errata ID: 5084, as rejected.

Kindly confirm.

Regards,
Dr. Priyatosh Mandal, Ph.D.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:47:28 +0530, Priyatosh Mandal wrote
Kindly note that, with the incremental change of this origin-state-id the peer node clear sessions. So when the change is from the maximum value to the minimum value of origin-state-id then it is not an incremental change. This is an exceptional situation, which I feel to be part of rfc. 

 Regards, 
 Dr. Priyatosh Mandal, Ph. D.

 On Aug 14, 2017 6:32 PM, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com> wrote:

 I believe what Dave is alluding to is that if one *does intend for the inferences to be made* then rolling over the value to 0 is not appropriate and avalue > 0, e.g. 1, MUST be used. 
  
 In a sense it is not an error as much as a note / warning for those who are allocating that AVP in a specific manner.
  

 From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Priyatosh Mandal
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 6:19 AM
 To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>om>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>rg>; vf0213@gmail.com; jari.arkko@ericsson.com; john.loughney@nokia.com; glenzorn@gmail.com; bclaise@cisco.com; warren@kumari.net; jouni.nospam@gmail.com; lionel.morand@orange.com
 Cc: dime@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (5084)
  
 Hello Sir, 
 The situation is a transition from the maximum value 4294967295 of Origin-State-Id. If after this, the value of Origin-State-Id is increased, it will automatically become 0. So the peer node which receives the value 0 after 4294967295, can assume the node whichsent this 0, 
 faced a restart. Here the peer-node  is already aware that the previous value of origin-state-id was 4294967295. So it can easily conclude node restart.

 I understand  the meaning of 0 as explained in RFC 6733 :"If an access device does not intend for such inferences to be made, it MUST either not include Origin-State-Id in any message or set its value to 0".But this is a special case, where the value of Origin-State-Id changes 
from  4294967295 to 
0.

 So kindly reconsider 
this. 

 Thanking you, 
 Priyatosh

 On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:51:25 +0000, Dave Dolson wrote
 In my opinion, the change should not be accepted.  
 In your roll-over special case, the device should skip over the value 0, using 1 or some other value instead of zero.

 David Dolson 
 Sandvine

 From: Priyatosh Mandal 
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:57 AM 
 To: RFC Errata System; vf0213@gmail.com;jari.arkko@ericsson.com; john.loughney@nokia.com; glenzorn@gmail.com;bclaise@cisco.com; warren@kumari.net; jouni.nospam@gmail.com;lionel.morand@orange.com 
 Cc: dime@ietf.org 
 Subject: Re: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (5084)

 Dear All, 
 Kindly verify this.

 Regards, 
 Priyatosh Mandal

 On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:04:56 -0700 (PDT), RFC Errata System wrote 
 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6733, 
 "Diameter Base Protocol".

 -------------------------------------- 
 You may review the report below and at: 
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5084

 -------------------------------------- 
 Type: Technical 
 Reported by: Priyatosh Mandal <priyatos@cdot.in>

 Section: 8.16

 Original Text 
 ------------- 
 By including Origin-State-Id in a message, it allows other Diameter 
 entities to infer that sessions associated with a lower Origin-State-Id 
 are no longer active. 
 If an access device does not intend for such inferences to be made, it 
 MUST either not include Origin-State-Id in any message or set its value 
 to 0.

 Corrected Text 
 -------------- 
 By including Origin-State-Id in a message, it allows other Diameter 
 entities to infer that sessions associated with a lower Origin-State-Id 
 are no longer active. 
 If an access device does not intend for such inferences to be made, it 
 MUST either not include Origin-State-Id in any message or set its value 
 to 0. 
 As a special case when the value of Origin-State-Id changes from 
 4294967295 to 0, then also the access device  clear all the sessions.

 Notes 
 ----- 
 Origin-State-Id is defined as Unsigned32 in RFC 6733, Section 8.16. So the maximum
 value it can have is 4294967295. If the system restarts many times and the value of
 Origin-State-Id reaches the value which is same as its maximum value 4294967295. 
 Then what will happen for the next restart. At the next restart the value of Origin-State-Id
 will be 0 if we try to increase the value of Origin-State-Id. 
 It is not defined in the RFC 6733, that how the system should behave after 4294967295-th
 restart with respect to Origin-State-Id.

 Generally when the peer receives an increased value of Origin-State-Id, then it clear all sessions.
 If the value of Origin-State-Id reaches its maximum i.e., 4294967295, then after another restart
 its value will be 0. For a special case for transition of value of Origin-State-Id from
 4294967295 to 0, the peer should clear its session.

 Instructions: 
 ------------- 
 This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please 
 use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or 
 rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party   
 can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

 -------------------------------------- 
 RFC6733 (draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-33) 
 -------------------------------------- 
 Title               : Diameter Base Protocol 
 Publication Date    : October 2012 
 Author(s)           : V. Fajardo, Ed., J. Arkko, J. Loughney, G. Zorn, Ed. 
 Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD 
 Source              : Diameter Maintenance and Extensions 
 Area                : Operations and Management 
 Stream              : IETF 
 Verifying Party     : IESG

 Priyatosh 
 Ext: 8517 
 Mob: 9810480266 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 ::Disclaimer:: 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 The contents of this email and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
 for the named recipient(s) only. It shall not attach any liability on C-DOT. 
 Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
 and  may  not  necessarily  reflect  the   opinions

 Priyatosh 
 Ext: 8517 
 Mob: 9810480266 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 ::Disclaimer:: 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 The contents of this email and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
 for the named recipient(s) only. It shall not attach any liability on C-DOT. 
 Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
 and  may  not  necessarily  reflect  the   opinions

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

Priyatosh 
Ext: 8517 
Mob: 9810480266 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
::Disclaimer:: 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The contents of this email and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. It shall not attach any liability on C-DOT. 
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and  may  not  necessarily  reflect  the  opinions