Re: [Hipsec] Minor correction to rfc7401 4.4.4 state machine

Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 03 July 2015 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F319A1A6F39 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 12:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 Up1Isprc57dz for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 12:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62B7F1A6F30 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 12:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79176d00000321c-27-5596e1724bbc
Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 13.C7.12828.271E6955; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 21:24:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB207.ericsson.se ([169.254.7.244]) by ESESSHC008.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.42]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 21:24:33 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
To: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] Minor correction to rfc7401 4.4.4 state machine
Thread-Index: AQHQtaIXxLetKz8g90+qHAFzGugcX53KIIQx
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 19:24:33 +0000
Message-ID: <ororae35mhvddokj89i3su9m.1435951468706@email.android.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1507030804250.21265@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1507030804250.21265@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US, es-ES
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ororae35mhvddokj89i3su9m1435951468706emailandroidcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7xw2mhBivtLKYumsxsMfP8QTYH Jo8lS34yebRcjwlgiuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKeNk3k63grFHF6VXnWBsYJxt2MXJySAiYSEw5 +5cVwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBRRolXqxcwQTiLGSVuXLkEVMXBwSZgIdGx2gykQURAR+LSiy1g zcwC6hLNveeYQGxhAVeJc9shbBEBN4mNn++yQdhGElM7D7GD2CwCKhIvpr1kBLF5gWouPdoO ZgsJeEps/DcLrIZTwEvi4IxjLCA2o4CsxLv586F2iUvcejKfCeJoAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/4Oq yZHou7afGWK+oMTJmU9YJjCKzELSPgtJ2SwkZbOAvmQW0JRYv0sfokRRYkr3Q3YIW0Oidc5c dmTxBYzsqxhFi1OLi3PTjYz1Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECI+rglt+6OxhXv3Y8xCjAwajEw7vg zdRQIdbEsuLK3EOM0hwsSuK8MzbnhQoJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpg5E8rDJHo 9skOWe601Zfvzd5oSaf7S142HXKP7HD/HX/FtODWib+S2mwNZ2OudjRkVFpv/b742NqjC+qZ XK2kmAvu6eZNWdif+8uCMfxstvkpicNvogq62UQlUnk3PfqRwGNRb7z+xtYSxZ0XxL8+Ej65 85rJrNkbLH5uuSzFuN/vquH38tLdSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAMQfioIkCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/np0ZvK3bAzR6knVvAN-vq9C_Zls>
Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Minor correction to rfc7401 4.4.4 state machine
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:24:40 -0000

Hi Tom,

Yes, the trend is to only "verify" errata that can clearly lead to interop problems. Other errata are typically "held for document update".

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Sent from my mobile


---- Tom Henderson wrote ----

Gonzalo,
I had a look at the criteria here:

https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html

and it states that this condition should be satisfied to log an erratum:

 Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or significant confusion should be Verified.

I'm wondering about whether this meets the criteria.  On the one hand, this is a mainstream state transition (I1-SENT gets to I2-SENT upon receiving an R1, not an R2).  On the other hand, this section is clearly informational (section 4.4) and the transition is correctly noted in the Table 3 in this section (also informative) and in the normative Section 6.8.

So, I wonder whether this is in the category of "could cause significant confusion" or rather whether an implementer would just recognize this as an obvious typo in conflict with other parts of the specification.

Any opinions about this?

- Tom

On 06/29/2015 01:36 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:> Yes, please log an erratum.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 29/06/2015 11:20 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/28/2015 09:51 AM, Darren Lissimore wrote:> Hey all;
>>>
>>> Read through 7401, got to section 4.4.4
>>> ​page 36.
>>> There's an error in the transition from I1-SENT to I2-SENT
>>> ​.​
>>> The draft has it as  recv R2, send I2 and
>>> ​it ​
>>> should be
>>> ​probably be ​
>>> recv R1, send I2
>>> ​as per Table 3 page 29   "recevie r1, process" trigger.
>>>
>>> ​Darren Lissimore