Re: [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3413 (7694)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Blake,

Thanks for the extra context.  Generally, IETF has a high bar for what it will accept as errata, particularly if it looks like it could have a high impact, and particularly when the RFC in question is now so old, and I generally err on the side of caution!

For me to mark this errata as verified then I need to determine that this is a mistake or omission and that the text that you suggest is what the WG intended and had consensus for at the time when the draft was approved for publication.  If there is doubt or ambiguity then another choice is “hold for document update” which effectively says that this should be considered for a future revision of this RFC, if that occurs.  The third choice is that the errata is rejected, which would occur if the consensus was that the current text is correct.

Regards,
Rob


From: Nemura, Blake <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>; Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3413 (7694)

I went through entire STD 62 to try to determine how notInView case is supposed to be handled, and this seemed to me (and my team implementing SNMPv3 in our products), based on the combination of multiple related RFCs referenced, to be the most appropriate and logical choice.

However, the main point of this erratum is just that it is not clear; the notInView error case handling is not defined.

If the authors/experts feel a different error-status or handling is more appropriate, such as to explicitly add it into the otherError case and result in a genErr error-status, that could be okay too. Although that would seem to conflict with RFC3416 4.2.5 (1), and otherwise the only explicit noAccess error-status case is in usmUserOwnAuth/PrivKeyChange descriptions.

Thank you for your consideration of this report.

Best,
Blake

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2023 5:47 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Nemura, Blake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3413 (7694)

Hi, I would appreciate input from the authors, and SNMP experts on how they think this errata should be processed please. I've looked at the appropriate sections of the RFC, but it isn't clear to me whether this errata is valid or not and I'm
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
External Sender
This message came from outside our organization. Please use caution before acting on the message.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,



I would appreciate input from the authors, and SNMP experts on how they think this errata should be processed please.  I've looked at the appropriate sections of the RFC, but it isn't clear to me whether this errata is valid or not and I'm slightly nervous of making what could amount to quite a significant change to the external API.



Regards,

Rob





-----Original Message-----

From: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 4:53 AM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3413 (7694)



The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3413,

"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications".



--------------------------------------

You may review the report below and at:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata_eid7694&d=DwIGaQ&c=Qwsh1H-X9ypOoLLEcAIltRyC0Dw0FG3Mmyd56ahml5w&r=lPfzzfb7P6JnRX7KHetEnJUQ73Ip0b_Gi7F4Es-CoMM&m=XArDtevwDu4lwoJL71VdxN4YHBEPEAvGTIXqiqw5T7-iSHPtALuezSsr8ZeqYVoH&s=T_Fz_YiP1BwpFqeQ7SJnmPMbef3POGY0UxjzXGRq9Gs&e=



--------------------------------------

Type: Technical

Reported by: Blake Nemura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>



Section: 3.2



Original Text

-------------

       - If the isAccessAllowed ASI returns a noSuchView, noAccessEntry,

         or noGroupName error, processing of the management operation is

         halted, a PDU value is constructed using the values from the

         originally received PDU, but replacing the error-status with an

         authorizationError code, and error-index value of 0, and

         control is passed to step (6) below.



       - If the isAccessAllowed ASI returns an otherError, processing of

         the management operation is halted, a different PDU value is

         constructed using the values from the originally received PDU,

         but replacing the error-status with a genError code and the

         error-index with the index of the failed variable binding, and

         control is passed to step (6) below.



Corrected Text

--------------

       - If the isAccessAllowed ASI returns a notInView error for a

         Write-Class viewType (e.g. for a SetRequest-PDU), processing

         of the management operation is halted, a different PDU value is

         constructed using the values from the originally received PDU,

         but replacing the error-status with a noAccess code and the

         error-index with the index of the failed variable binding, and

         control is passed to step (6) below.



       - If the isAccessAllowed ASI returns a noSuchView, noAccessEntry,

         or noGroupName error, processing of the management operation is

         halted, a PDU value is constructed using the values from the

         originally received PDU, but replacing the error-status with an

         authorizationError code, and error-index value of 0, and

         control is passed to step (6) below.



       - If the isAccessAllowed ASI returns an otherError, processing of

         the management operation is halted, a different PDU value is

         constructed using the values from the originally received PDU,

         but replacing the error-status with a genError code and the

         error-index with the index of the failed variable binding, and

         control is passed to step (6) below.



Notes

-----

RFC3415, Section 3, defines 6 distinct errorIndication types for the isAccessAllowed ASI: notInView, noSuchView, noSuchContext, noGroupName, noAccessEntry, and otherError.



Whereas RFC3413 does not define handling of the notInView error. Whereby one might, presumably mistakenly, assume that notInView should be handled as "an otherError". However otherError is a distinct errorIndication for "undefined error" (presumably as a catch-all for possible implementation-level errors), whereas notInView is a defined error.



Additionally, RFC3416, Section 4.2.5, and only for SetRequest-PDU, clearly defines noAccess error-status as the first-priority validation check for "not...in the appropriate MIB view" case:

   (1)   If the variable binding's name specifies an existing or non-

         existent variable to which this request is/would be denied

         access because it is/would not be in the appropriate MIB view,

         then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set

         to "noAccess", and the value of its error-index field is set to

         the index of the failed variable binding.



Instructions:

-------------

This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it

will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please

use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or

rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party

will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.



--------------------------------------

RFC3413 (draft-ietf-snmpv3-appl-v3-01)

--------------------------------------

Title               : Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications

Publication Date    : December 2002

Author(s)           : D. Levi, P. Meyer, B. Stewart

Category            : INTERNET STANDARD

Source              : SNMP Version 3

Area                : Operations and Management

Stream              : IETF

Verifying Party     : IESG

________________________________
- CONFIDENTIAL-

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may also be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this email.