Re: [manet] On Forwarding-and-regeneration (was: Re: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review

> On 22 avr. 2016, at 11:57, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
> 
> Just be careful to note that this concept is as currently being discussed (a) specific to AODVv2, and (b) not an application of 7182, which has no knowledge of special TLVs.
> 
> This is something we'd want to get right, and need to get right if in any space not specific to ADODVv2, because getting it wrong produces future problems.
> 

It would seem obvious that this "special TLV" would be specified without a reserved TLV type from the IANA registries - and that in the experiment enabled by an experimental RFC, we would want to use (TLV, message) types from the Experimental type space from these registries. This precisely because this is something which, as Chris suggests, "getting wrong produces future problems". 

Thomas
(Running between meetings)

> I can see some possible approaches, none is ideal and we're rather out of time to specify. But this is experimental, so I think we might be able to indicate the shape of the solution without specifying it, which would be a different RFC, under a bit less time pressure. (Extensions to existing protocols like 7182 would naturally be in scope rechartered I think.)
> 
> To indicate the range that's open, here are two possible ideas, one of which has an impact now, so needs to be agreed. Note that I'm not suggesting (in fact quite the opposite) defining an extension to 7182 here, rather enabling such an extension, if written, to "do the right thing".
> - We have an extension to 7182 that says "zero out all value octets in protocol specific TLVs. That requires now putting the AODVv2 metric TLV in that space.
> - We have an extension to 7182 that adds extra material to the value field that indicates (TBD how, by position with sanity check that this is TLV value perhaps?) which octets are to be zeroed out before the ICV is calculated.
> 
> We do not have the time to specify this in an acceptable manner within two weeks though. But the security consideration section could say something along the lines of "this enables the use of an ICV defined to zero out these octets".
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> T:  +44 (0)1245 242194  |  E: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
> 
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
> www.baesystems.com/ai
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451
> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lotte Steenbrink
> Sent: 22 April 2016 10:28
> To: Henning Rogge
> Cc: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list
> Subject: Re: [manet] On Forwarding-and-regeneration (was: Re: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)
> 
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *** WARNING ***
> EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.
> 
> 
> Hi Henning,
> 
>> Am 22.04.2016 um 11:08 schrieb Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Lotte Steenbrink 
>> <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>> Can it?! Iirc, the reason why we adopted the “regeneration” language 
>>> in the first place is that we’ve been told that whenever one bit in 
>>> the message (apart from its header) is changed, the entire thing has to be regenerated.
>>> I’m starting to get the feeling we’ve just been misunderstanding each 
>>> other for more than a year. :( Anyway, it seems like we’re getting 
>>> close now, so yay.
>> 
>> "Modifying" the binary message instead of parsing and generating a new 
>> one will be difficult as soon someone writes an extension to AODVv2 
>> that adds more TLVs to the message.
> 
> D’oh, right. Yeah, if I remember it correctly, that’s what you explained to me when I got confused about the topic last spring… But– even if a message contains TLVs that the AODVv2 implementation handling it doesn’t understand, it will still be able to recognize the Metric TLV, right? Isn’t that the nifty thing about RFC5444? So, while we really shouldn’t write “before calculating the ICV, set the n-th 4 octets to 0”, we might say “identify the octets that make up the metric value and set those to 0”?
> 
> Best regards,
> Lotte
> 
>> Henning Rogge
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet