Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: (with COMMENT)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Working on too many things at one time. Actually this is already cover in section 6.3 so I will reference that section. 

      If a TLV or Sub-TLV is recognized but the length is less than the
       minimum, then the LSA should be considered malformed and it
       SHOULD NOT be acknowledged.  Additionally, the occurrence SHOULD
       be logged with enough information to identify the LSA by type,
       originator, and sequence number and the TLV or Sub-TLV in error.
       Ideally, the log entry would include the hexadecimal or binary
       representation of the LSA including the malformed TLS or Sub-TLV.

For example:

The sub-TLV length must meet minimum length constraints as specified in section 6.3.  

Thanks
Acee 

On 1/24/18, 3:11 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Suresh, 
    
    On 1/24/18, 10:20 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    
        Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
        draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: No Objection
        
        When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
        email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
        introductory paragraph, however.)
        
        
        Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
        for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
        
        
        The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend/
        
        
        
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        COMMENT:
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        
        * Section 3.10 and 3.11
        
        What does the sub-TLV length mean here? Are values other than 4 and 16
        permitted? If not, how is the packet treated (sub TLV is ignored?)
    
    My thought was to allow for further sub-TLVs defined recursively. However, one would still need a minimum length of 4 or 16 for the forwarding address TLVs. I will add this constraint and will indicate that the TLV is treated as malformed if it is not at least 4 or 16 octets respectively. Similarly, for the Route Tag sub-TLV, I'll indicate that the length must be at least 4 octets. 
    
    Thanks,
    Acee