Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing?
Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 24 September 2020 19:11 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510A93A123E; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.347
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 vjf8pbdl3hPe; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142C13A1237; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.25.185.139;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, 'John Scudder' <jgs@juniper.net>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org
References: <303E54F6-833A-4458-B3E6-DE90E7CA121B@juniper.net> <CAMMESsy8uZb9GLgh12LD9SvYSxZeMczy52TDM30w88Fbx5+2Nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsy8uZb9GLgh12LD9SvYSxZeMczy52TDM30w88Fbx5+2Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:10:56 -0400
Message-ID: <01ad01d692a6$6ed1adb0$4c750910$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01AE_01D69284.E7C19450"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJFO/98nG4CXpcqgpkjUdeb0RRdigMQtefPqIJOcrA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200924-0, 09/24/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RT-nzqyy9xq_ckNUwNoTR21p9mE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:11:25 -0000
John, Alvaro, Christoph, and Danny: I agree with Alvaro that the document covers the unknown case. However, it is fine to add the text to tie the information down. I do not think we need to take this back to the WG – as I believe the text covers this point already. Sue Hares From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 5:37 PM To: John Scudder; idr@ietf. org Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org; Hares Susan Subject: Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing? John: Hi! Personal opinion: I believe that the “specified here” part (meaning this document) is already covering the unknown case. However, I have no objections to adding the phrase in. Thanks! Alvaro. On September 23, 2020 at 5:14:50 PM, John Scudder (jgs@juniper.net) wrote: Hi All, I’m a little concerned about a change I failed to notice earlier in 5575bis. Version 17 had this paragraph in Section 4.2: All combinations of component types within a single NLRI are allowed, even if the combination makes no sense from a semantical perspective. If a given component type within a prefix in unknown, the prefix in question cannot be used for traffic filtering purposes by the receiver. Since a Flow Specification has the semantics of a logical AND of all components, if a component is FALSE, by definition it cannot be applied. However, for the purposes of BGP route propagation, this prefix should still be transmitted since BGP route distribution is independent on NLRI semantics. Version 18 removed the paragraph. I believe it was removed because of good and reasonable concerns about the “prefix should still be transmitted” part. But, it appears we threw out the baby with the bathwater: the final version of the draft has nothing that corresponds to the underlined part. It is underspecified with respect to what should be done with unknown component types. The closest it comes is this paragraph in Section 4.2 of version 26: A NLRI value not encoded as specified specified here is considered malformed and error handling according to Section 10 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26#section-10> is performed. But I think this falls well short of being either clear or unambiguous, because what does “as specified here” mean exactly? I’d like to open a discussion of whether the WG agrees that this is a bug and if so, whether it’s concerning enough to request a last-minute patch to the document, which is currently with the RFC Editor, so it’s almost an RFC. I think the least intrusive fix would be to insert the clause “including an NLRI that contains an unknown component type”, as in: A NLRI value not encoded as specified here, including an NLRI that contains an unknown component type, is considered malformed and error handling according to Section 10 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26#section-10> is performed. Just as a side note, “error handling according to Section 10” points us to RFCs 7606 and 4760, which end up telling us to reset the session if the NLRI is malformed. Until we get a chance to discuss this, I’ve sent a note to the RFC Editor asking them to hold publication. Thanks, —John P.S.: The version 26 text also has a proofreading error, “specified specified”. But I assume the RFC Editor would fix that anyway.
- [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fix… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… McPherson, Danny
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-… Christoph Loibl
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis… Jeffrey Haas