Re: [kitten] RFC2743 errata 4251

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 16:25 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 5DF9D1A00B2 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:25:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 pYRw46-9acym for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457FD1A00AF for <kitten@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195FE20024944; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:25:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=TXwdbA5X45NaWg FO8ECIJXv8JiE=; b=coymmp1siNIze+KX1gz4Le8JWZFKxTOjbZoBAU90U9wK9l veLdwZ5vRpTbnE428N9qpF6PVKJYnj72HYyQadxBG8ptwNgX2lXLMAvNA2mxocpg cPXUEl4pOISKi0edfxN7Z28X2VYoxIDz22x3u4hU3oJmeeil1r4yCEPiGnRyI=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C356820024943; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:25:07 -0600
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-ID: <20141110162504.GA3412@localhost>
References: <20141104204714.GI7913@localhost> <20141108014820.3278A1AFAB@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141108014820.3278A1AFAB@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/UrKtRMAvi80IQtkyP-Lrvl8tJaA
Cc: 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: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:25:09 -0000

On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 02:48:20AM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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
> 
> I hate to do this (to you), but I'm "violently" opposed to this errata.

Hey, at least you hated doing it!

> I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of the original text.

Perhaps.  The goal is to explain how to process an unexpected error
token.

> Quoting from your errata:
> 
>   Section 2.2.4 says:
> 
>    o  GSS_S_FAILURE indicates that the context is recognized, but that
>    the GSS_Process_context_token() operation could not be performed for
>    reasons unspecified at the GSS-API level.
> 
>   It should say:
> 
>    o  GSS_S_FAILURE indicates that the peer had an error consuming the
>    last context token sent to it (when the local side must have been
>    fully established but the peer hadn't yet been).  The minor status
>    code provides error information from the input token.
> 
> You find similar descriptions for GSS_S_FAILURE semantics all over
> the GSS-API specification _on_purpose_, and you _may_not_ remove that
> meaning here.

Fair enough, we'll add text rather than replace text.

> You may at most add a hint that the minor_status(!!) that must
> accompany a GSS_S_FAILURE major_status returned from
> gss_process_context_token() may not just cover reasons that are
> a "local matter" (i.e. implementation issue of the current gssapi
> mechanism) but include reasons conveyed through an error token
> from the remote side.  It will be impossible to define portable
> behaviour to programmatically react to specific such reasons,
> because what will be returned is not just a local issue, but
> a remote plus local issue combined.

I agree.

> Btw. any minor_status that conveys an error from a remote peer that
> was carried in an error token ought to clearly say that this
> information came from the remote peer (and is not a local error) in
> the textual translation from gss_display_status().

Indeed.

Nico
--