IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 02 May 2019 18:28 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 9D78D120125 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 6lzJUrT_GMvL for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 2F348120099 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44w3g02Lnqz72r; Thu, 2 May 2019 20:28:28 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1556821708; bh=2PxJesZUe+3pcnjSuv2lZRf84qN42AOs/wIAuyPxbwk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Qe0Gyen5ZtfrbTJNlZCjJSEsDjt/yZ5zJqPp//A0euDEYuGgv5KA6oSF263gtQl0L L+/I7eixdkWz+LMcSbMjDizCtyBEjZp7YuRMQVqVnsUvY1O5tsHB3Rb/8b5hkJQ8DQ HtvuY3a0PUAp3lmM6LDtcL8LH+AonSBw8xykO7b8=
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 YfaZALFtAPZ5; Thu, 2 May 2019 20:28:26 +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; Thu, 2 May 2019 20:28:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9BEC73A797B; Thu, 2 May 2019 14:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 9BEC73A797B
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DBA4027A8E; Thu, 2 May 2019 14:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 14:28:24 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: ipsec@ietf.org, 'Tero Kivinen' <kivinen@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <00c001d4ff1b$62c87050$285950f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905021427180.1269@bofh.nohats.ca>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/zV0LWyo9NulUwHedLQNx0QFobN0>
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: Thu, 02 May 2019 18:28:32 -0000

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Valery Smyslov wrote:

>> 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

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email