Re: [Iotops] Error categories in constrained IoT authentication

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 23 February 2021 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EA03A0E34 for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:41:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 PswduXh5nEKD for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED1A13A0E30 for <iotops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A310389E7; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id eFM69nh23LxZ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A527389DD; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26742C3F; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:41:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB=3FR8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy=3F=3D?= <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, "iotops\@ietf.org" <iotops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <08C9D759-335F-4AED-9A53-458834804998@ericsson.com>
References: <49569FF2-938B-4584-B290-F16558F352F5@ericsson.com> <27125.1613409584@localhost> <7FFB63D7-801D-4E8B-8257-BE9BCF7BA6BF@ericsson.com> <32317.1613496636@localhost> <08C9D759-335F-4AED-9A53-458834804998@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:41:46 -0500
Message-ID: <30662.1614105706@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/dTFyUl29v7tUo4n5fHPGGZY9JLg>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] Error categories in constrained IoT authentication
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:41:52 -0000

Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com> wrote:
    mcr> I think that there is a sweet spot where we could get enough
    mcr> information to do further investigation, while not blasting useless
    mcr> information around.

    GS> Exactly this was the intent with the draft error categories A-G in my
    GS> previous mail. Are they doing a good job?

    mcr> They get close, but they only describe complete failures, and they
    mcr> may need to announce intermediate progress, or even failures to even
    mcr> begin.

    GS> Could you give some example of "failure to begin", and "announce
    GS> intermediate progress" which illustrates missing top level
    GS> categories?

failure to begin:

In a BRSKI situation: device has not begun onboarding because it never found a join proxy.

In some other onboarding situation, it could be that device is waiting to see
some other broadcast.  Or perhaps it needs an IPv4 address, or an answer to a
DNS request.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide