IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN vs INVALID_SYNTAX

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 23 June 2019 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 72655120253 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 16:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 AJMMrTUikdsG for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 16:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF8E1200F1 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 16:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45X7qw3ppbzDmq; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 01:27:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1561332444; bh=RQlEis/KkF8tcHlAg8hKHoWRVV4HyZ8iL02gVc6sPsc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WktaThp2psC6Zl80oHqPfz+9TKu6m/g4i7QfLyWuiGFrf6j7lDsl09LNPWlXvmuW7 1BNwPcNocyGqPrtJKSNldfumYUgLc20AuzlmYO3OHK22MZ2HwU3hyUrOvs4llztoSg JUUtaC5l80Am+dKPOZnFFDW6A/29+tqjAfHlozfU=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIgIpjFj2JCy; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 01:27:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 01:27:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8A2BF4A46EA; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:27:21 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 8A2BF4A46EA
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C6540D35BF; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:27:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:27:21 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <23821.64770.290809.680244@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906231926260.23013@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906200940420.9218@bofh.nohats.ca> <23821.64770.290809.680244@fireball.acr.fi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/7yiv8JllDTHiim7MHCI-cYVpinQ>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN vs INVALID_SYNTAX
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 23:27:29 -0000

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> If both implementations work correctly you should NEVER send
> INVALID_SYNTAX error. That always means there is programming error in
> one of the implementations.

> Correct error code is NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN as you use unknown IP to do
> policy lookup, find empty list of acceptable proposals to match
> against what other end sent, and of course empty list does not match,
> so you do not have any proposal that matches, meaning you return
> NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN.

Thanks to the group for the various explanations. I've changed our
return code back to NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email