Re: [kitten] RFC2743 errata 4251

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 06 November 2014 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D42F1A1B5C for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 r66nGMB22i88 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1131A1AEB for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C2A76805C for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=BFDOd7CDAHdFKKKPmgGb 6ZqaaK4=; b=bhl3xWNe5EvbDg/g73lG3HTBpsi+wTDu/MGG4/yVZ4KZ9oJ4CDOP o6FKKhthil4ZeSKEgrZqke4i9L38zn2bnrJMSX7IdB6VO12TxMFd1U4bcm2lHacv aXJWX8uGv3OKa6uV8BrmZZZptVOuBXukKNPqfaRavMwqi5UOsl+Thow=
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AF25768059 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so2117191wgh.28 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:24:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.240.68 with SMTP id vy4mr9427468wjc.36.1415305474910; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.32.135 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1411061418150.27826@multics.mit.edu>
References: <20141104204714.GI7913@localhost> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1411061418150.27826@multics.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 14:24:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhYqHSZxS3QZJxAc1CgT9jujqkdQmcpR1GkJJqnTRoUcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/GShbjVp0e1neR0xcalKqGfe1Zps
Cc: "kitten@ietf.org" <kitten@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [kitten] RFC2743 errata 4251
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten/>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:24:37 -0000

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Nico Williams wrote:
>> I wrote this yesterday but neglected to click the submit button.  Just
>> submitted:
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4151
>
> It was probably a little premature to submit while discussion was still
> ongoing.  We could probably wordsmith things a little better, but this
> looks consistent with the (3a) from my list.

Well, it can't be too premature to file the erratum: it has to be
discussed regardless.

> And of course it neglects the possibility of (rare) local errors like
> ENOMEM.

Yes, but since either way the context has to be deleted... no harm
results.  (Also, the peer isn't likely to send an error token saying
ENOMEM, not if it has to allocate memory to make it.)

> That said, I do not think I have any strong objections to any portion of
> it.

I think this is likely the consensus.  Do we need a formal call for
consensus?  Do we want to use the erratum for that and wordsmith it
first?

Nico
--