Hmmm, how about a bis for 3692? Seriously, you think every document that defines an Experimental protocol range must describe the processing that an implementation must do if someone is ill-advised enough to run two experiments with overlapping experiments in the same network? Presumably, at some level the PDUs will be considered malformed and an alert raised. Possibly (although it seems highly unlikely) the PDUs will be interpreted as valid and cause entertaining results. But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a crash! You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does not need to be graceful. There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to see, move along now. Adrian From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 January 2018 13:19 To: Adrian Farrel Cc: The IESG; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS) Hi Adrian, Thanks for your thoughts. On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental codepoints.
We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over, but this is a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out. This is not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations handle conflicts. No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there is confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern. -Ekr Ciao, Adrian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
