IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] HbH flags [Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06]

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 05 December 2018 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
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 D3243130E14; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:51:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=strayalpha.com
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 AjUNEFjfiCLn; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77409130E03; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:51:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=A0qFJ4XdGu/BpRoEp1IOsSmTDc9kgzby6gSjWD1sm8E=; b=xwVcdI1/jB2EGXR9aTejEcdH9 rMTRbb2KC5Dac32KGvjfUmCqe+IjRQ/1GaQtuWVdkQ/s+k4IbA8oQOWCG/w3tCjh9Jjz7Tn++sH4T iOtYAzEztBw/65Crco63Vaz0PnxM/J9ZhSB9vrZVoy7nEbA1RX8/5iqRFcHPaynTypW+Ir1rAScxn qB7E/WcyvHiN0JKnaNDsw8LHj+9X6pwxF0+Rh+0p/B9nWdY//WAaVQ1b1KXzJncSWyvsxLtHg68g3 zvlH6GSF/rMAdP1gQ3g5ufaHaWjUIAaFIxxstk7zy9LHf5JTn8A4p7/Quby1iV/HcLcDG8tli/L+D QZW8zkqdw==;
Received: from [172.58.21.134] (port=60197 helo=[IPv6:2607:fb90:5ab9:34a3:a5d1:5453:14c2:db03]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1gUg0R-00443K-9p; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:50:59 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16B92)
In-Reply-To: <e5198c02-ebc6-ee3e-96cb-fd2831164f41@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:50:58 -0800
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering.all@ietf.org, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, tsv-art@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <02AD0268-BFB8-4CA2-8985-08AFE6013ABB@strayalpha.com>
References: <977CA53D-7F72-4443-9DE2-F75F7A7C1569@strayalpha.com> <6bd1ec94-f420-1f4c-9254-941814704dbb@gmail.com> <6be84ccf-9a72-2694-e19d-fa19043a0cb1@huitema.net> <4C249487-BD58-41BB-B8B6-081323E29F6C@strayalpha.com> <20181126075746.GO72840@Space.Net> <6C50775C-EB67-4236-93B8-DF0259E04167@strayalpha.com> <20181126175336.GW72840@Space.Net> <c959d8cb6f6a04a8da8318cfa89da341@strayalpha.com> <2425355d-e7cc-69dd-5b5d-78966056fea7@foobar.org> <C4D47788-0F3D-4512-A4E3-11F3E6EC230B@strayalpha.com> <8d3d3b05-ecc3-ad54-cb86-ffe6dc4b4f16@gmail.com> <C929A8B9-D65C-4EF7-9707-2238AE389BE3@strayalpha.com> <CAL9jLaY4h75KK4Bh-kZC6-5fJupaNdUfm1gK2Dg99jBntMCEyQ@mail.gmail.com> <C47149DC-CAF2-449F-8E18-A0572BBF4746@strayalpha.com> <CAL9jLaYfysKm7qrG=+jq7zV=5ODnSX-tAhBAiTU7SzYF-YmcGw@mail.gma il.com> <728C6048-896E-4B12-B80B-2091D7373D16@strayalpha.com> <8a676a4a-c76d-9fa5-ce79-534a14cf0511@gmail.com> <2386B45D-8AEE-4C95-BB00-A5A2ABF63F8A@strayalpha.com> <e5198c02-ebc6-ee3e-96cb-fd2831164f41@gmail.com >
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/eCtZtXW7bcrQ7MbYYHeu7IS3mwM>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] HbH flags [Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06]
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, 05 Dec 2018 22:51:02 -0000


> On Dec 5, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-12-06 01:16, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Nobody deprecated the flags that require HBH options to be processed or dropped if not supported. 
>>> 
>>> Intentionally. If a forwarding node is transparent to HbH options,
>>> it is not looking at those flags. If it is looking at HbH options,
>>> it will obey those flags. Why is that a problem?
>> 
>> What exactly does ‘transparent to HbH options mean’ if not ‘not supported’?
> 
> It means a forwarding node that uses the exception added by RFC7045 and simply
> doesn't even look for an HbH header. The flag bits are invisible and irrelevant
> to such a node. The flag bits apply as defined for a forwarding node that *does*
> process HbH options, so they certainly should not be deprecated

Do why bother with “drop if not supported” if not supported can mean silently skipped over?

Or the other variants?

They’re now meaningless but required to support. You don’t see the contradiction?


> 
>   Brian
> 
>> 
>> In that case, the flags have exactly no meaning anywhere. But they’re not deprecated.
>> 
>> That makes no sense at all.
>> 
>> Joe
>> .
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email