Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-notifymsg-00.txt

"Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com> Mon, 21 June 1999 19:11 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA27662; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA05862 Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:23:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <376E753A.3F9FC093@redcreek.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:24:10 -0700
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Organization: RedCreek Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tamir Zegman <zegman@checkpoint.com>
CC: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-notifymsg-00.txt
References: <3.0.2.32.19990618121400.0069e810@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov> <376CDC88.2768B517@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tamir,

Tamir Zegman wrote:

<trimmed... comments below>

> I have one remark on the Notify message drafts.
> I believe that there should be room left in the notify payload for a textual message
> describing the problem.
> Such an error string along side the pre-defined notify types has the advantages of
> refining the meaning of the notify message type and it could be used for auditing or for
> displaying a message whenever a user is involved.
> 
> So, my proposal is that the notify data field should be structured like a list of data
> attributes pairs (attribute type + attribute value),
> one pair would contain the data that you have proposed in your draft, and another
> (optional) pair would contain a string.
> Actually, I believe that a similar proposal was raised at the NC bakeoff a while back.
> 

I agree that some accompanying text would be useful, but I wonder if the
field in which the text resides should be fixed, rather than freeform.
My initial feeling is that use of A/V pairs raises some concern for
buffer overflow attack. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Scott