IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 01 August 2024 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B955C169413 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57UsyDCbN8sN for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8D8C1388B9 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f15790b472so2123661fa.0 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1722498485; x=1723103285; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=fqV/JLLhYZunGzx87vrsuhSCSN7EhvaHhwJtX9Ph7mU=; b=UpD2t0DukObf07oLRxbOAdlXpBQb/dLgTQ0UKS9haw9I2qD+bHilg8zobVq/KUZHRE 3CMw9LLDBEGKVWLbe05rd6+xSTh4tGPm1/RHrXAa9nKQLFvK6E7X9KWhw1Hd1pJqqp2Q qo4DUbY4/ONYUlAEr9uG8e+XnUYFd1DFGoFUJqsz4R/z35L5TEW/bnUnbUlbE5mh8f+5 vjrwVgDG+WwDJue8MaCpfzS8Z6pwsI45KTt9mGHQrBvthQ/EqEXIIPAQiOzf3paf3rIP BKz8NP/496KpSFfs0MQsFogvGHnETjZpDV38hOlY2rNS2ifqZXHN8FcsnEGIIzJysMMt 9qkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722498485; x=1723103285; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fqV/JLLhYZunGzx87vrsuhSCSN7EhvaHhwJtX9Ph7mU=; b=KRcF6pIa3ps+xYhUAL6LNocEd9VjvVOpR/BKfyXlUcw815ALW0oaWHZC/iHKZFBAA1 50AKbwciASvjmpDuwRDwUS1oxYgJHve84cMJ3iZSa136Gea9bikW+CrQLIWAh8+gtBtt gEN+5EqRYq/h9s5aBrwkU1oPHI9vFmOAn2fX0kbcpS0h0o5mPtS1ApiG7J1SXy15vprr JpUEBrRU/5MBPtqLXLOdPaH0M03+omlIKBB4L2siei+9gB4TaLkhzg+SDHMYTKK6+YcS j7ue7ZGEF+t817mkRFY+ojiHlzogYIjG1tWPD79fMyL/5/8Tj/r67pcr4pUXxgMkP4iW mjBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzBHMEFOHfsRlXYZmwn9JvBMtHl7W9lMwUSmQwghkNs7uuh2++h jcYYtgmmXSEBmp1vrC2j3bLTHrgtzAgc9Jf/a1G2N7hAHpMAKj29nLiLUQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IELMnjMncloB/XEJ3ExlOkeMaKptFAXc21RZrAKjhNp5ez/0zUEbzjHnrwKgvNYazY0HiOTHQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:538:b0:52c:fd46:bf07 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-530b61f5b0dmr823915e87.49.1722498484206; Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BuildPC ([93.188.44.204]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-52fd5bd0a4bsm2490515e87.68.2024.08.01.00.48.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
To: 'Paul Wouters' <paul.wouters@aiven.io>
References: <020701dae1b9$b6741070$235c3150$@gmail.com> <CAGL5yWY4NktSfjyEs_kGEjWAyRFtd0kncDam4YMtGwfrtbDMEg@mail.gmail.com> <02b901dae28f$9c17ff30$d447fd90$@gmail.com> <CAGL5yWZ15kkXN3zB+U4L1TwakU82wTX7-kC697_06N8msofJ2g@mail.gmail.com> <030101dae31b$c8efecc0$5acfc640$@gmail.com> <CAGL5yWbeF5iuCVkotpmd5QoZuXWMymwmSw-a2CjFKjr2_b=XJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGL5yWbeF5iuCVkotpmd5QoZuXWMymwmSw-a2CjFKjr2_b=XJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 10:48:03 +0300
Message-ID: <043201dae3e7$23c22ed0$6b468c70$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0433_01DAE400.490FDC00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKTXxMcsL+OEoqUquj1O3JZgb5E3gFcW1jiAZzcA6wC1ygAWAEAkJrhAn3rJ62wVpb3QA==
Content-Language: ru
Message-ID-Hash: VPB2RJERKNXXF3KBVA4UOEKJZYTXZHHN
X-Message-ID-Hash: VPB2RJERKNXXF3KBVA4UOEKJZYTXZHHN
X-MailFrom: smyslov.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipsec.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/-D_29li7XSaSwpT6UCxfyBCb1jQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipsec-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipsec-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipsec-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Paul,

 

now I will use this color for my remarks.

 

          By the way, I think that it would be more helpful to the user if you include “Related SPI” field

         in your notify – the SPI of the SA that caused the deletion of this SA.

         In case of INITIAL_CONTACT this might help.

 

It could be useful, but is it useful enough to add it to the structure so every "reason" has to have a "related SPI"

field? It might be, andwould be more structural that expecting it in a "free from field". So I wouldn't object to

adding this.

 

         Yes, I was thinking about a separate field for related SPI, not about a free form (which necessity I oppose).

         Actually, related SPI is only useful with INITIAL_CONTACT reason, but may still be specified for all reasons, just not be used (sent as zero) for most of them.

 

         Regards,

         Valery.

 

Paul

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status