[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal: session establishment

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 28 January 2018 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6271270FC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:16:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 h_RiBMoWVrsB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79210127058 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.71] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0S2FsWS020924 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 19:15:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.71]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:16:09 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <C59E9AA2-10FA-451C-BBCA-FB380C6D8C99@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tfaY_Ap1cFpvJHtNrfLUONObRos>
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal: session establishment
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:16:13 -0000

Greetings. The -05 draft still has a complexity that I can can be easily 
fixed. In a few places, it says that a session can be established by the 
client sending a response-requiring DSO request message. For example, 
from section 4.1:
    A DSO Session is established over a connection by the client sending
    a DSO request message of a kind that requires a response, such as 
the
    DSO Keepalive TLV (see Section 6.1), and receiving a response, with
    matching MESSAGE ID, and RCODE set to NOERROR (0), indicating that
    the DSO request was successful.

This logic requires a client to survey all the kinds of requests it 
knows to find one appropriate for establishing the session. It also 
requires the server to have to check the first message for any kind of 
response-requiring request message.

Why not just say that the session MUST be established by the client 
sending a Keepalive message? That message must be understood by all 
parties, and both the values in it have defaults listed in the draft. A 
client who has not real preference for the inactivity timeout or 
keepalive interval can just use the defaults; a client with a stronger 
opinion can start the session with what it wants.

This change would simplify the draft in a bunch of places by making the 
protocol more definitive.

--Paul Hoffman