[Idr] Clarifications on Error handling for malformed sub-tlvs in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com> Wed, 22 January 2020 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <nandan@arista.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 017ED12006B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:53:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arista.com
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 RXpaX00wnFj0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22b.google.com (mail-oi1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22b]) (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 D622C120044 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l9so4844882oii.5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:53:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=googlenew; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=440EnO+Rz/QGkPUS39gY8dFdPDx3piTVf5GbXZMShpU=; b=hNyA77x6uU/d78A5N34wTXFpxdjS1ybeyOIBGzAcxLtSBTBe9i+HjHgzHWcti0ATxM YEF6ZGxugLfeegtjaej3iYOyRu5uTsO33TJvWRNvoG/EcKVZp8CuxXKw7hnz9b1YcY+X hjdGCNjICFwYSaT6Hs4yfEhnw/MVbUwekBC5JWmi9JE9OdjymOJEhRJHDN3HdaTPFRcv PbjdeqBUr7TGoLi0LEMTZheoMe65iOnrVr3/VCPOSvBy83udCV99EXLK7QCxBJtcCIGT NRpQyjoMwsjmgqX9BB1O9mubwmKkzKUCRtTNfXUIEqj9EUc391Dbs5bWrFbFe+TNVJDr CetA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=440EnO+Rz/QGkPUS39gY8dFdPDx3piTVf5GbXZMShpU=; b=qUA7B/MliWithgGlQTmY+NtnpUjVBbOaURZXXuII+5qabBqMr1IezYRlEmv8j1C5Y/ 5ZksIqB1aw3cxlLxF4AOnJzrrIuexFZ5dUWjw5q4DhIrIv/0FiQjY/bqK29eSW3nbYRQ RwSELry5mnStufK38JqPADQK1dD8ytQTEt3gbhpMWpssO5QuPvrfZortI7In02MeoWaP VVuijnh+Sj4ol4sfOCQvZ5dGPMzqrkaoPAYnQc7FW2pzr799jd56njV4oZ5RqPfiW6Pk Cx0uxlUb8pnQLJS2qkOGiLV4ZIW+eSSHPLNfBLJzYOAtmcF8tdfjVyAoEixcOXwqSxFd R3EA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXoAMJknJy5kN6FNtE2vWHw4/zbaEu23sYXN1oIkaS5HVIbXl5d bO237+wWd8/UZ0MempFck7XHAAJz7frk+VkLzwsDFMOeAe/70D1d
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpJ0/3hV74+5MXwpDXLKIV2VNMtjaNSiiQebhbsyYCcjV3rTJ/8NhOPSzGR1IK2lC64dj55ieiOJuRegN/Tao=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d507:: with SMTP id m7mr5218776oig.48.1579665184856; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:53:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Nandan Saha <nandan@arista.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:22:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CAE+itjcyGFSSXuqQVqN3v4S73uCWhx7N1YRxm-v3sQB4ZfGdcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org
Cc: Kumaran Narayanan <knkums@arista.com>, Hui Qu <hui@arista.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000035425f059cb27654"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_teQvisrxTQLiFieNN0zulLL82A>
Subject: [Idr] Clarifications on Error handling for malformed sub-tlvs in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:53:08 -0000

Hi folks,

In the following quoted text,
>>>
If a TLV of a Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains a sub-TLV that
   is not recognized by a particular BGP speaker, the BGP speaker MUST
   process that TLV as if the unrecognized sub-TLV had not been present.
   If the route carrying the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute is
   propagated with the attribute, the unrecognized TLV MUST remain in
   the attribute
<<<

instead of "unrecognized TLV MUST remain" in the last part of the sentence,
shouldn't it be "unrecognized sub-TLV" (sub-TLV instead of TLV), since the
context is how to handle unrecognized sub-TLVs? (or something like
"unrecognized sub-TLV MUST remain in the TLV")

The same text is referred to for how to deal with malformed sub-TLVs, ie.
>>>
In general, if a TLV contains a sub-TLV that is malformed (e.g.,
   contains a length field whose value is not legal for that sub-TLV),
   the sub-TLV should be treated as if it were an unrecognized sub-TLV
<<<

Just want to confirm that the intention is to propagate the malformed
sub-TLV(s). I'm not entirely sure how that's useful though (as opposed to
stripping away just the malformed sub-TLV(s) from the TLV before
propagation)

Thanks,
Nandan