IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes

"Valery Smyslov" <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 06:02 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 4B04412009E for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 23:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SLdnFC8QPpz9 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 23:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 CAE07120096 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 May 2019 23:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id z124so2083433lfd.6 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 May 2019 23:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Fzx2h2dINoIne6XQ0fxHMONWTIstMJd+RnWtA/nmSQE=; b=k2hNWmpn9CdNLexTliQ9MKP0HZK1/BQPVjf23JvHF7OxIKaOQH3Zmx2fRGRCcUsD1m JCihdjCGhcMDdIoZGJ+yFUMk+mxKOrhHUTZ0c/pi5ZBJ5s0vZs8jyhLSzltUI0kMl3LR iDdiYnLh2XdjLL20R1bVufwVgDxhhCvM/Fhlg/n1ZNTVB/VVt3jtseA2dfH7N3qVLMrt dq2dbFdx5D/t19+XKQfNxLykvdTk3Ti/nFfboJvYT9XpaF47Kb7NGpO0oSBE4ScRyl/o ZZqGYRk0qcZHmCVOkItIfaz98BK+QSt6I7ABLpbk/mmm7l3+MeuiXE2V6EQ6grPr7nzR OiWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Fzx2h2dINoIne6XQ0fxHMONWTIstMJd+RnWtA/nmSQE=; b=TdR62xBroJBR3dJPQ9hddYCGPmKVM01pLGbw8zq9jTWO4wrD2OR6bAr7hgkeqph57X xTbWvJMcbgNBuQ5qC5u8bFYmzt5F8pcfOwvsAgHReTqUQkKc4NboIUek0wp6zODZS9Oq /i40Tz9EwxuVaTwVwuk8YFh6bFcs2Cl0+AjsbmSPBhRBXnXC1fvBU7GB+uD/roOuhwKc tY0NPcGHarv+czCbQcfCczWxHJIeGcDjv1hOY+/z1l0JlxGac3ZLh8qdQirJeOqcEWLq FGjzu1wRGrL8SyGbF+8BJVtlwMYZw/DSajX7Om7CCck/o42YRnfmC2PPpMdJlSn7i1bQ zYXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVqt7hD5r4+5rLW67hxJGiVeGJMSTXzGp1RgbYR9Ki8npVgINGC ARKOFuIjIPBvf+xXSwZgZDAj3GIP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy/KIFeEyu68WNTPl3YixXzcncjhILTiIjTgwdYyX422kACM7yCql0MXnmaLeTQqF6F/x9U8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4f54:: with SMTP id a20mr11647357lfk.136.1557122526708; Sun, 05 May 2019 23:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from buildpc ([82.138.51.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y10sm588863lji.12.2019.05.05.23.02.05 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 05 May 2019 23:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
To: 'Paul Wouters' <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, 'Tero Kivinen' <kivinen@iki.fi>
References: <23734.7331.402882.289451@fireball.acr.fi> <01b201d4f4f1$e617eb90$b247c2b0$@gmail.com> <636D1D4B-3E3F-47F1-B64C-A266BF871010@nohats.ca> <00c001d4ff1b$62c87050$285950f0$@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905021427180.1269@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905021427180.1269@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 09:02:05 +0300
Message-ID: <02cf01d503d1$3bc9d970$b35d8c50$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGx2DB/WIutEoo9ZJxUMu3Z3MbCGgJMohb3Ab24xX8DHlx+XQCoBll6pmVrQZA=
Content-Language: ru
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/O_WnAN6dOyfCf4-vy9fbjDIrjMc>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes
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: Mon, 06 May 2019 06:02:10 -0000

> >> I would prefer no notify if the request was fulfilled and to only send a notify if a request could not be
> fulfilled.
> >> Since clients can ask for both that should cover things. If a client isn’t asking for ipvX, I see no need to
> answer
> >> that ipvX is supported too.
> >
> > That would make sending these notifies dependent on the content of request.
> > So, the tradeoff is whether saving eight bytes justifies complication of state machine.
> 
> I wouldn't call that complicated the state machine. You are not adding
> new states or transitions, and you already keep a list of received
> payloads for this state/exchange I hope :P

True, I wasn't precise enough. The complication is that in the current approach
the responder sends these notifications blindly, sending them doesn't depend
on the content of CP request.

Regards,
Valery.

> Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email