Re: [Idr] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing?

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

[Explicitly adding Jeff to the To list.]

Hi!

During my AD review there was a discussion on the list about this point,
and whether we could avoid resetting the session.  Jeff presented some
examples and, I think, made a very convincing case of why we really can’t:
even if we can look at the length, we would still be guessing.

I think this is one of the messages:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FHC-Vz26LZfam-o5Y-9-WSrEm2g/

Jeff: if you get a chance, please chime in.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On September 28, 2020 at 2:16:38 PM, John Scudder (
jgs=[e-mail]) wrote:


I think that is the right thing, too: FS uses T,V and not T,L,V for its
component types, the lengths are implicit. So, if my parser encounters an
unknown type code it is impossible for me to know how to skip over that
type code. At that point, parsing breaks down.
[Bruno] I had in mind the higher level of hierarchy:

   The NLRI field of the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI is encoded as
   one or more 2-tuples of the form <length, NLRI value>.  It consists
   of a 1- or 2-octet length field followed by a variable-length NLRI
   value.  The length is expressed in octets.

                     +-------------------------------+
                     |    length (0xnn or 0xfnnn)    |
                     +-------------------------------+
                     |    NLRI value   (variable)    |
                     +-------------------------------+

                Figure 1: Flow Specification NLRI for IPv4

At this level, assuming that the NLRI value is found semantically
incorrect, it seems to me that one could:
-          Skip this NLRI (thanks to the ‘length’ field) and continue with
the next NLRI
-          Read the ‘NLRI value’ as an opaque data, and treat this NLRI as
withdraw. (In the context of the discussion, this NLRI would never had been
accepted, so ‘treat-as-withdraw’  could even be replaced with ‘ignore’. But
I’m _*not*_ calling for this).
Hence it seems to me that treat-as-withdraw is technically possible.


Fair enough. It’s a little unfortunate that the draft contains this
ambiguity; in retrospect it would have been better to be explicit about the
error-handling strategy chosen rather than simply referencing RFC 7606.
Whether or not we want to respin the draft in order to clarify it, is a
question for the WG. If we were to make a change, it could potentially be
the addition of this sentence, in Section 10:

   Error handling according to [RFC7606
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7606>] and [RFC4760
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4760>] applies to this

   specification. *Notably, an NLRI that is found to be semantically*

   *incorrect (for example due to an unknown component type) MUST be*

   *handled using the “treat-as-withdraw” strategy (which in this case,*

   *it** must be noted, works out to be the same as skipping over the NLRI)**.	*