Re: [lisp] Unknown LCAF Types (?) (draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf)

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I stick to my answer to Christer, we should update 8060 ;-)

Ciao

L.


> On 14 Apr 2022, at 13:39, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Hmm — let’s start with the positive.  The new text looks good to me.
> 
> OTOH, even if rfc6833bis is the base specification, rfc8060 is an optional extension…. The problem is one of references and document status:  
> 
> rfc8060 is an Experimental document — the current reference in rfc6833bis is Informative, which is ok because there’s just a general reference to the AFI — “LCAF-Type MUST” makes the relationship to rfc8060 Normative and changes the behavior of rfc8060 implementations, so we should change the reference type and formally update rfc8060, which results in a downref, which requires community approval (new IETF LC), which requires the IESG to consider the downref registry, . . .
> 
> I don’t think any of us wants to reopen rfc6833bis at this point. <sigh>
> 
> 
> Ideally, rfc8060 would have included that one extra sentence: “an unrecognized LCAF-Type MUST be dropped”.
> 
> We have two other options:
> 
> (1) Let it be.  rfc8060 is Experimental, people “experimenting” with it can figure it out, and when/if the document goes on the Standards Track we can add the text.  I know there are production deployments, but these are mostly controlled (people shouldn’t see unknown types).
> 
> (2) Use lisp-vendor-lcaf, which adds a new Type, to formally update rfc8060 on what needs to be done if an unknown Type is received.  Both documents are Experimental and lisp-vendor-lcaf is in line to be approved next week by the IESG, so there are no cumbersome process issues.
> 
> 
> So…what does the WG want to do?  reopen rfc6833bis, nothing, or use lisp-vendor-lcaf
> 
> [FWIW, my personal preference (as WG participant) is to use lisp-vendor-lcaf.]
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> On April 13, 2022 at 3:02:28 PM, Dino Farinacci ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
> 
>>> Just confirm, the behavior is not specified in rfc8060, right?  It seems to me that it would be good to specify it somewhere and draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf looks as good a place as any - do you agree?
>> 
>> I search as well and it wasn't obviously stated. But 6833bis has this text:
>> 
>> <PastedGraphic-7.png>
>> 
>> Which doesn't make clear if the LCAF AFI is supported but the LCAF type is NOT supported, the LCAF type should be dropped.
>> 
>> Should we add this to rfc6833bis?
>> 
>> The suggested text would be:
>> 
>> . . . LISP control-plane messages that include an unrecognized AFI or LCAF-Type MUST be dropped . . .
>> 
>> Dino