IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN vs INVALID_SYNTAX

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 20 June 2019 19:01 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 03D311201E0 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pwRZYYfItAtj for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E6912017E for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4239E38185 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:59:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6A5AF12EB; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:00:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B5B560 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:00:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <028201d52775$f89a8230$e9cf8690$@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906200940420.9218@bofh.nohats.ca> <028201d52775$f89a8230$e9cf8690$@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:00:52 -0400
Message-ID: <23965.1561057252@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/tbNzeUTnfv2PDXZ4mt9BGl7PJ6g>
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 19:01:08 -0000

Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > generally the INVALID_SYNTAX must be returned when something fatal
    > happened, that cannot be fixed by adjusting configuration etc., only
    > re-installing app after bug-fixing would help.  In contrast,
    > NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN means that after some actions from operator the
    > connection would succeed.

I agree that INVALID_SYNTAX should be about things you can't fix by
configuration.

I also agree with Paul:

    paul> I guess in the end, we are really missing a "CONNECTION_REJECTED"
    paul> notify that would cover all the things not covered in the more
    paul> specific notifies.

I would like some more fine-grained replies as well.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email