Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Wed, 18 March 2020 11:33 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A57F3A1412; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 04:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JTCjW7P0_wjO; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 04:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1E73A1411; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 04:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C86B61B00191; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:32:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: dominique.barthel@orange.com, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, "draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc@ietf.org>
References: <158152010913.17982.18347318138768196852@ietfa.amsl.com> <340_1584143298_5E6C1BC2_340_169_1_DA91D669.71EAC%dominique.barthel@orange.com> <32170_1584485182_5E71533E_32170_159_1_DA9701E5.7204F%dominique.barthel@orange.com><B0375E01-4715-4116-B1DA-16FCFCCBD3B9@strayalpha.com> <14147_1584490832_5E716950_14147_78_1_DA97272C.7215F%dominique.barthel@orange.com> <13a7c9d6-4deb-46f2-c203-095510b9a79c@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <086b8002-dd2a-4383-809d-8b05cc6c9deb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:32:55 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13a7c9d6-4deb-46f2-c203-095510b9a79c@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6884845EFE5F4234A685D61F"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/Ta6tdnlvMziK-uJLQaJm-RW-rx8>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:33:08 -0000
Magnus commented in more detail while I was composing my reply by re-reading ROHC specs. Gorry On 18/03/2020 11:29, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > > It's Joe's discussion, but from my viewpoint I would have thought that > it was at least VERY useful to clearly indicate what to do when the > UDP indicated length differs from the IP indicated length. > > - This is important, since TSVG is developing a PS that specifically > will do this. > > RFC3095 contains: > The Length field of the UDP header MUST match the Length field(s) > of the preceding subheaders, i.e., there must not be any padding > after the UDP payload that is covered by the IP Length. > > The word padding should really be bytes, but seems like it is heading in the correct direction to define the issue. > > Why does this ID not require sending uncompressed? > .... If it is not this spec which spec needs to say something? > > Gorry > On 18/03/2020 00:20, dominique.barthel@orange.com wrote: >> The default rule is to send the packet uncompressed. >> There is no default rule that says that the UDP length can be recomputed. >> There are specific rules that say that the length can be recomputed, and >> each one knows how the length can be computed. >> And you are right, the UDP length has to be checked before the >> corresponding rule can be applied. >> This is outside the scope of this draft. >> I'm happy to add a warning "This system should not allow a rule that >> indicates that UDP length can be ‘recomputed’ if it isn’t also checked as >> such beforehand." to this draft >> Would that work? >> >> Dominique >> >> Le 18/03/20 01:10, « Joseph Touch »<touch@strayalpha.com> a écrit : >> >>> The problem is with the any default rule that indicates that UDP length >>> can be computed. That is the flaw. It can only be computed if the UDP >>> length matches the end of packet indicated by the IP header. >>> >>> This system should not allow a rule that indicates that UDP length can be >>> ‘recomputed’ if it isn’t also checked as such beforehand. >>> >>> That is the flaw. It is with the system not checking, not merely the rule. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 3:46 PM,dominique.barthel@orange.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> Here are some examples to illustrate my answer in the mail below. >>>> >>>> We have the following processing chain: >>>> - protocol parser: breaks the headers of incoming packet into itemised >>>> fields, each with an identifier that tells what they are. Hands this set >>>> of fields to the SCHC compressor. >>>> - SCHC compressor: browses the Rule set to find a Rule that matches the >>>> set of fields. Compresses each field per the Rule, sends RuleID + >>>> compression residues + payload. >>>> - SCHC decompressor: based on the received RuleID and residues, rebuilds >>>> the itemised fields, hands the set of fields to the protocol >>>> reconstructor. >>>> - protocol reconstructor: concatenates the itemised fields into protocol >>>> headers, concatenates the payload. Hands to the upper layer. >>>> >>>> Here, let's assume we intend to compress the UDP/IPv6 headers. The upper >>>> layers headers are considered "payload" in our discussion. >>>> For this discussion, I will only consider the Length field of IPv6, >>>> ignoring all other IPv6 fields. >>>> Therefore, I will say an old-style UDP/IPv6 packet only has 5 fields: >>>> - IPv6.Length >>>> - UDP.Length >>>> - UDP.Checksum >>>> - UDP.SourcePort >>>> - UDP.DestPort >>>> While a post draft-tsvwg-udp-options UDP/IPv6 packet may have more >>>> fields >>>> - UDP.Option1 >>>> - UDP.Option2 >>>> - etc. >>>> >>>> Let's assume ProtocolParserA does not understand >>>> draft-tsvwg-udp-options. >>>> Let's assume ProtocolParserB does understand draft-tsvwg-udp-options. >>>> Let's assume PacketU is a well formed old-style UPD/IPv6 packet. >>>> Let's assume PacketV is a post draft-tsvwg-udp-options UPD/IPv6 packet, >>>> that includes UDP.Option1 and UDP.Option2. >>>> Let's assume Rule1 only has the old-style 5 field descriptors. In its >>>> CDAs, the UDP length is elided at the compressor and reconstructed out >>>> of >>>> IPv6.Length at the decompressor. >>>> Let's assume Rule2 has the 5 old-style field descriptors plus >>>> UDP.Option1 >>>> and UDP.Option2. In its CDAs, the UDP length is sent in extenso as a >>>> compression residue. >>>> >>>> When PacketU or PacketV is submitted to SystemA, which includes >>>> ProtocolParserA, or to SystemB, which includes ProtocolParserB, the >>>> outcome is described in the following table. >>>> >>>> PacketU PacketV >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -- >>>> -------------------- >>>> | PPA parser | 5 itemised fields | incorrect UDP length, >>>> nothing handed to SCHC >>>> | SCHC comp | Matches Rule1 | >>>> SystA| | UDP.Length elided | >>>> | SCHC decomp | UDP.Length recomputed | >>>> | PPA reconstr | correct UDP header | >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -- >>>> -------------------- >>>> | PPB parser | 5 itemised fields | 7 itemised fields >>>> | SCHC comp | Matches Rule1 | Matches Rule2 >>>> SystB| | UDP.Length elided | UDP.Length sent as a >>>> compression residue >>>> | SCHC decomp | UDP.Length recomputed | UDP.Length retrieved >>>> from residue >>>> | PPB reconstr | correct UDP header | correct UDP header >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -- >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> Further variations: >>>> >>>> If a PacketW has 3 options, yielding 8 fields, it does not match Rule2. >>>> With SystB, it will be sent uncompressed. >>>> If case SystB does not have a Rule1 in the Rule set, PacketU will be >>>> sent >>>> uncompressed. >>>> If case SystB does not have a Rule2 in the Rule set, PacketV will be >>>> sent >>>> uncompressed. >>>> There is no way PacketV will be matched by Rule1, which is the case that >>>> was envisaged as problematic by TSV-ART, if I understood correctly. >>>> Now, if ProtocolParserA does not check for consistency between >>>> UDP.Length >>>> and IPv6.Length, then we have a problem. >>>> But the problem is with the protocol parser, not with SCHC. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Dominique >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 14/03/20 00:48, «dominique.barthel@orange.com » >>>> <dominique.barthel@orange.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> This is the response by the ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc >>>>> co-authors >>>>> to the observation below by Joseph Touch. >>>>> You are right that Section 10 of ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc only >>>>> shows how to compress IPv6/UDP packets that have no extensions. >>>>> >>>>> However, the SCHC specification in Section 7.1 states >>>>> "It is assumed that >>>>> there is a protocol parser alongside SCHC that is able to identify >>>>> all the fields encountered in the headers to be compressed, and to >>>>> label them with a Field ID." >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, Section 7.3 states >>>>> "If any >>>>> header field of the packet being examined cannot be matched >>>>> with a Field Description with the correct FID, the Rule MUST be >>>>> disregarded. If any Field Description in the Rule has a FID >>>>> that cannot be matched to one of the header fields of the >>>>> packet being examined, the Rule MUST be disregarded." >>>>> >>>>> It follows that, if an IPv6 packet does contain the new UDP TLVs >>>>> introduced by draft-tsvwg-udp-options, it will not match a Rule >>>>> destined >>>>> to compress the IPv6/UDP headers and that does not have these TLVs as >>>>> part >>>>> of the Field Descriptors. >>>>> Therefore, it will no be compressed by that Rule and will not be >>>>> decompressed with a wrong UDP Length at the receive end. >>>>> >>>>> By contrast, if a Rule destined to compress the IPv6/UDP headers does >>>>> have >>>>> these UDP TLVs as part of the Field Descriptors, it is responsible for >>>>> reconstructing the UDP Length properly. This can be achieved by means >>>>> already provided by SCHC, such as sending the value over the wire or >>>>> matching it to an expected constant, etc. >>>>> >>>>> In conclusion, the SCHC compression mechanism, if properly >>>>> implemented, is >>>>> fully compatible with draft-tsvwg-udp-options. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Dominique >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 12/02/20 16:08, « lp-wan on behalf of Joseph Touch via Datatracker » >>>>> <lp-wan-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Reviewer: Joseph Touch >>>>>> Review result: Almost Ready >>>>>> >>>>>> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review >>>>>> team's >>>>>> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were >>>>>> written >>>>>> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the >>>>>> document's >>>>>> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to >>>>>> the >>>>>> IETF >>>>>> discussion list for information. >>>>>> >>>>>> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider >>>>>> this >>>>>> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always >>>>>> CC >>>>>> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. >>>>>> >>>>>> I found no transport issues with this document. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, this document normatively cites >>>>>> ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc, >>>>>> which does have some transport issues of concern. I am listing them >>>>>> here >>>>>> because of the dependency between the two documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> In particular, ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc overlooks the case >>>>>> where >>>>>> the >>>>>> IP header indicates a packet longer than the UDP header, a case that >>>>>> is >>>>>> currently being developed for UDP header options in TSVWG. This other >>>>>> document >>>>>> claims that both UDP and IPv6 length fields can be computed from the >>>>>> received >>>>>> data, but this is not the case when the IP header indicates a packet >>>>>> end >>>>>> after >>>>>> that of the UDP header. See draft-tsvwg-udp-options for more >>>>>> information. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no changes needed to this document to address this length >>>>>> issue, but >>>>>> the normative dependency in this doc is the reason for indicatin this >>>>>> document >>>>>> as "Almost Ready". >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> lp-wan mailing list >>>>>> lp-wan@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >>>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> __ >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >>>>> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les >>>>> messages >>>>> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >>>>> ou falsifie. Merci. >>>>> >>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >>>>> information that may be protected by law; >>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>>>> delete this message and its attachments. >>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >>>>> been modified, changed or falsified. >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>> ________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >>>> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les >>>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >>>> ou falsifie. Merci. >>>> >>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >>>> information that may be protected by law; >>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>>> delete this message and its attachments. >>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >>>> been modified, changed or falsified. >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tsv-art mailing list >>>> Tsv-art@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tsv-art mailing list >> Tsv-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-l… Joseph Touch via Datatracker
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Tsv-art] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last ca… Joseph Touch