IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 11 August 2024 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.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 C80CFC14F696 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 YFF9jpmBr49a for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A24A4C14F738 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15993898B; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id yhoxRcxAze8F; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:01:59 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1723352519; bh=vH+7cm12aY+leN/B2jFYpnkJoRoWTDojfQlpH4Zz+Mg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=n64qpd9yhaRNHTsMBLoHZ4VYS8/yCb/MDZvEe439o51Wrb3O7QQrUx6CTUBiOQxI/ hpaWLm7mUnTPdvjIejvYuJbIUNwIKIMQ/2m34cQFWMDB1uLpJjpU3UpwLRNftgBWVy hyZ9fkY2uiF6l8hbm8rY8D+pkP01nxzjBSshgAIHqHdrUgebqO9CKwcYHHkPSq5Wgm yHZMwbkZve7WtYUAo4APIoYI4/t3iDzdRzrU8s2lvh+e3g69n4hQECoM6tNL7K669x 10cwFWalfXOlmJzg3+ThJf4r8nRWArzzQQYP8NPIGKRLjSO1F+TGgIJjmXMcxAOYKt rBtSypjK04zag==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8094838982; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:01:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AFE5BE; Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:01:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <26296.1860.751075.299515@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <020701dae1b9$b6741070$235c3150$@gmail.com> <337427.1722364766@dyas> <26296.1860.751075.299515@fireball.acr.fi>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
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: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:01:59 -0400
Message-ID: <5734.1723352519@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: MIV73MGSXZZFGOJPAJ2WAE2HQA5FFZXO
X-Message-ID-Hash: MIV73MGSXZZFGOJPAJ2WAE2HQA5FFZXO
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
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
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/9l5wp6DuS1_AFjWaQeOL0ODrwVY>
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>

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
    > Michael Richardson writes:
    >> If we are going to rely on the enum alone, then it needs to cover all sorts
    >> of cases that might be specific to some implementations, while other
    >> implementations would have a more general code.

    > Perhaps instead of reason text we have generic enumeration of close
    > reasons like we have now, but in addition to that we have 32-bit
    > vendor specific reason code. The vendors could then use that vendor
    > specific code field to put in some internal error code or something

It could even just be some unique slug that the gateway sending the
message could put into it's log.

I'm agnostic about including the text; include a language tag if we like.

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

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status