Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 22, 2021, at 5:15 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> Besides clarifying that, I think that new OPEN Message Error subcodes
>>> are needed for the cases where the length is invalid. This type of
>>> error is possible in the non-extended version of the OPEN too -- I
>>> guess rfc4271 just assumed that this error would never happen.
>> 
>> RFC 4271 left a lot to be desired in terms of nuanced error codes. I agree
>> that we could introduce a subcode called something like “optional parameter
>> field length mismatch” to be sent if the optional parameters length exceeds
>> the unconsumed OPEN length. However, I’m disinclined to do it in this
>> document, because it’s a pre-existing problem, it exists with the
>> non-extended encoding as well, so any fix for it should really fix both
>> cases. As such, it seems a funny fit for this doc.
> 
> As I said in my reply to Jeff, I'm ok with that not being included in
> this document.

And I wouldn't push for it.  Which means there's probably no chairs' conversation to be had. :-)

-- Jeff