Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 03 August 2017 13:37 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B44131FF3; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 BMBSO4loo7Nr; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 06:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C434131EB3; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 06:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DLW52594; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 13:34:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.172) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:34:04 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.200]) by blreml703-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:03:54 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "'Dale R. Worley'" <worley@ariadne.com>
CC: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-pceps.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pceps.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dhruv.ietf@gmail.com" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14
Thread-Index: AQHTCzilzqPRSDFqSU+m/UcLVejzmaJyF/3A
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 13:33:54 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CB98624@blreml501-mbb>
References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CB962D9@blreml501-mbb> (dhruv.dhody@huawei.com) <87d18ed75n.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <87d18ed75n.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.79.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.5983264E.0046, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b42523666d453e6c31b5be5136449c93
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/mZ2LNOEyuhlFjEDgqTFuLo_VVrs>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 13:37:36 -0000
Hi Dale, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale R. Worley [mailto:worley@ariadne.com] > Sent: 02 August 2017 08:10 > To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pceps.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; > ietf@ietf.org; dhruv.ietf@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 > > Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> writes: > >> It's more complicated than that: If a PCE does not like the first > >> message it receives, if it implements PCEPS, it replies TBA2/2. But > >> if it does not implement PCEPS, it replies 1/1. Similarly, a PCC may > >> reject an initial message with either of these error codes, depending > >> on the situation. If the other endpoint does not implement PCEPS, it > >> might be surprised by receiving TBA2/2, which it has no way of > >> understanding in detail (although it will probably simply disconnect, > >> which is what it would do in reaction to a 1/1). > >> > > [[Dhruv Dhody]] You are right about this case, which I have clarified > > now - > > > > If the PCEP speaker that only supports PCEPS connection (as a local > > policy), receives an Open message, it MUST treat it as an unexpected > > message and reply with a PCErr message with Error-Type set to 1 (PCEP > > session establishment failure) and Error-value set to 1 (reception of > > an invalid Open message or a non Open message). > > > > In your description you mentioned the error TBA2/2, but the > > description of TBA2/2 is - > > > > A PCEP > > speaker receiving any other message apart from StartTLS, Open, or > > PCErr as the first message, MUST treat it as an unexpected message > > and reply with a PCErr message with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] > > (PCEP StartTLS failure) and Error-value set to 2 (reception of any > > other message apart from StartTLS, Open, or PCErr message), and MUST > > close the TCP connection. > > > > So receiving of open message would not trigger this error. The new > > text above would take care of that. > > I don't know if the case I'm thinking of is important enough to change > anything for, but I think it should at least be thought about. > > I'm considering the situation where the TCP connection is started, and one > endpoint receives a message that it does not understand. Not the case > where a non-implementing endpoint receives a StartTLS, but where the > message is entirely incorrect, and is neither Open nor StartTLS, or at > least, is sufficiently malformed that the receiver cannot parse it as one > of those message types. > > Of course, this situation should never happen, but I expect that it is > occasionally seen, and it would be useful if it was handled in a way that > would make it easier for the humans involved to diagnose the problem. > > If the receiver of the message does not implementing PCEPS, it will send > error 1/1. The receiver of the error (the sender of the message) will > receive 1/1, and will "understand" it and log it as something requiring > human intervention -- whether or not it implements PCEPS. > > OTOH, if the receiver of the message implements PCEPS, it will send error > TBA2/2. If the receiver of the error (the sender of the message) > implements PCEPS, it will understand it and log it as something requiring > human intervention. However, if the receiver does not implement PCEPS, it > won't understand the error message, and will have to log it as "I received > an unknown error message". Of course, human inquiry will reveal that the > error message was a PCEPS error message, and its meaning is "unknown > initial message", getting us back to the previous situation. But it seems > to me that this is adding a step of human processing where it could be > avoided, and that better performance (of the humans and the system as a > whole) would be achieved in practice if a PCEPS implementation, when it > received an initial message that was not Open or StartTLS, sent a 1/1 > error in the same way as a non-PCEPS implementation. > > Dale [[Dhruv Dhody]] I have added this in the backward compatibility session to note this concern - Note that, a PCEP implementation that support PCEPS would respond with PCErr message with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] (PCEP StartTLS failure) and Error-value set to 2 if any other message is sent before StartTLS or Open. If the sender of the invalid message is a PCEP implementation that does not support PCEPS, it will not be able to understand this error. A PCEPS implementation could also send the PCErr message as per [RFC5440] with Error-Type "PCEP session establishment failure" and Error-value "reception of an invalid Open message or a non Open message" before closing the session. Regards, Dhruv
- [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-p… Dale Worley
- Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dale R. Worley