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

["Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <[e-mail]>]

However, the spec is not wrong as much as there is no warning to ensure the reader is aware of the situation.   

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Yuval Lifshitz
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 12:20 AM
To: Priyatosh Mandal <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (5084)

Don't think it should be rejected. Even if the implementation rollover 4M to 1 (and not to zero) there is still an issue of the fact that the origin-state-id is not incremented.
IMO, it should be addressed in the spec.

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Priyatosh Mandal
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:52 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (5084)

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]" <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Priyatosh Mandal
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 6:19 AM
To: Dave Dolson <[e-mail]>; RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
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; [e-mail];[e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
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:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid5084&data=02%7C01%7Clyle.t.bertz%40sprint.com%7C22cd07b0b7174d6fdc7608d4e4666ace%7C4f8bc0acbd784bf5b55f1b31301d9adf%7C0%7C0%7C636384575908897376&sdata=EITh8Z6bWAwU9pur6Zrospr9D%2Fd2UgKe%2BTBrmkh%2BDzA%3D&reserved=0

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Priyatosh Mandal <[e-mail]>

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: [phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::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: [phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::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.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdime&data=02%7C01%7Clyle.t.bertz%40sprint.com%7C22cd07b0b7174d6fdc7608d4e4666ace%7C4f8bc0acbd784bf5b55f1b31301d9adf%7C0%7C0%7C636384575908897376&sdata=OuKsSusa3%2FM8fjvTaKJ%2F%2FEgL%2FGwWDQUFCQu%2BqKTNJxg%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdime&data=02%7C01%7Clyle.t.bertz%40sprint.com%7C22cd07b0b7174d6fdc7608d4e4666ace%7C4f8bc0acbd784bf5b55f1b31301d9adf%7C0%7C0%7C636384575908897376&sdata=OuKsSusa3%2FM8fjvTaKJ%2F%2FEgL%2FGwWDQUFCQu%2BqKTNJxg%3D&reserved=0