[DNSOP] ECS badly formatted ADDRESS field

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> Thu, 24 December 2015 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592D91AD0C8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:31:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdYkWDeyaElm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A42E1AD0C3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic.l0.malgudi.org (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 435952FA00BF; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 02:31:18 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:01:14 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20151224023114.GA2748@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BN4TJk6X4UYzTwxWA4iv5Lr6Cgs>
Subject: [DNSOP] ECS badly formatted ADDRESS field
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 02:31:22 -0000

Hi all


says in Section 6. Option Format:

>   o  A server receiving an ECS option that uses more ADDRESS octets
>      than are needed, or that has non-zero bits set beyond SOURCE
>      PREFIX-LENGTH, SHOULD return REFUSED to reject the packet, as a
>      signal to the developer of the software making the request to fix
>      their implementation.

FORMERR seems more appropriate than REFUSED for an implementor to notice
format issues, and perhaps this has been raised on this list already. If
you can change this, please change this to FORMERR.

I have a related clarification. What if the ADDRESS field has fewer
octets than than SOURCE PREFIX-LENGTH indicates? Should REFUSED or
FORMERR be returned in this case? The draft must clarify this if it's
requiring REFUSED.