Re: [tcpm] ICMPv6 Error Handling at TCP draft-fujisaki-tcpm-icmpv6-reaction-00.txt

At 03:16 p.m. 21/03/2007, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:

>>>Anyway, it doesn't matter which specific ICMPv6 code falls into hard
>>>or soft here.
>>Exactly. That's why it doesn't make sense to do the mapping from 
>>ICMPv6 to ICMPv4. The point is that there's no clear definition of 
>>what is a hard error or a soft error. There's no such thing as soft 
>>or hard by itself. It depends *when* you receive the error message. 
>>Defining ICMP admin prohibited as soft or hard is IMHO pointless.
>
>No. I mean it doesn't matter in this example admin prohibit is hard
>or soft as far as there is hard error.

You have RSTs.

>>>This is my opinion about RFC1122-revision and soft-error RFC
>>>relationship. As soft-error RFC will be informational in the immediate
>>>future, IMO all the vendors that implements RFC1122 may not even
>>>notice or take a look at it.
>>We have had this discussion of Informational vs. Std track for one 
>>or two *years*, more than one year ago. And the WG agreed on Informational.
>>As for vendors not looking at Informational docs.... I don't buy 
>>that at all. Let's be clear: Any vendor with a clue will (or what's 
>>the purpose of Informational docs, after all?). As a matter of 
>>fact, many vendors already look at internet drafts.
>>The ICMP attacks draft is aiming at Informational, too. Yet 
>>virtually all vendors have implemented most of it. Nobody ever 
>>bothered whether it was Std track or Informational.
>
>IMO, ICMP attack draft addresses a security problem, so it may be easier
>to make people move.

Then the issue you are raising is political, not technical.

>>If your specific problem arises from use of IPv6, then you can send 
>>the vendor (Microsoft?) the soft errors draft, and even direct them 
>>to the v6fix site. If that's not enough, I guess the only thing 
>>left is to have their clients tell them that it really sucks to 
>>have to wait dozens of seconds to browse a web page.
>
>It may work for my specific problem. For the benefit of every
>people using the Internet, which way should we take ?

I don't see the difference. You have a document that describes a 
problem, and a workaround. If an implementation suffers the described 
problem, send them the doc. After that, is up to them to do something, or not.

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm