SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: Problem with use of NotUnderstood in negotiations




    Bill,

    My only intention in the note was to be brief.  If you viewed that as rude I am really sorry.
    I have a lot of mail to reply to and a limited time.

    As for the crux of the matter - if one of the parties receives a key it has not seen before
    with NotUnderstood as value it MUST act on it as a protocol error. The text is unambiguous on this.
    However we may want to strengthen the rule in 4 (and add another line of text) as follows:

    The constants "None", "Reject", "Irrelevant", and "NotUnderstood" are reserved and MUST ONLY be used as described here. Violation of this rule is a protocol error (in particular the use of "Reject", "Irrele-vant", and "NotUnderstood" as proposed values).

    In the second part of my comment I was just saying that if you  failed to implement the above check you still can't enter a loop
    because the double negotiation rule.

    To get you in a loop in which every party think it answers - then either both are buggy or somebody is altering the messages maliciously.
    The protocol is not designed to handle either.

    Julo


    Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>

    08/11/2002 06:11 AM

           
            To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
            cc:        <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
            Subject:        RE: Problem with use of NotUnderstood in negotiations

           


    On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Julian Satran wrote:

    > Bill,
    >
    > Perhaps the text is unabiguos but you just ignored the text that forbids
    > it.

    Julian,

    I must say that the tone above is very unbecoming of the author of a
    protocol spec. In the past, I've often gotten snippy comments from you,
    but written them off to, well, I'm not sure what. But it seems that you
    really don't listen to what I say. You read a message, make an
    interpretation, do not question that interpretation, and then you run with
    it. That's really bad. Besides being quite rude and exceedingly arrogant,
    you'll miss things. And the iSCSI spec will suffer for it. Do you think
    whatever is going on between us worth more than a bad iSCSI spec? I don't.

    Also, if you're going to say that the text is unambiguous, please quote
    said text. That makes the discussion much clearer.

    > The use of Notunderstood is limited to responses. Using it as you suggest
    > is a protocol error.

    Julian, I have to ask, what exactly do you think I'm suggesting? From
    parsing your sentence, I read that you are telling me that I'm suggesting
    using NotUnderstood outside its limited scope, of responses.

    As I understand the situation I described, both parties think they are
    using NotUnderstood as a response. How is using it as a response outside
    its use as a response?

    > A repeated use will also violate the "no renegotiation rule".

    Please be VERY VERY VERY careful when saying that. Have you thought about
    what the statement you just made will imply?

    We are (or at least I started) talking about the case where one side
    THOUGHT it sent key X, but somehow it was key Y that made it to the other
    side. Be it a bug in the code on one side or the other, a PCI bus error in
    transfer, a router glitch, or what. Key Y doesn't exist in the spec, and
    it's in the negotiation stream. OGMarker or DataPDPInOrder would be
    examples.

    The point is, BOTH SIDES THINK THEY ARE RESPONDING to a key they don't
    understand. Reading the spec, it succinctly states if you get a key you
    don't understand, you MUST reply "NotUnderstood".

    Getting back to the "repeated use is a protocol violation," how is each
    side supposed to realize that they are seeing "OGMarker=NotUnderstood" for
    the second time, other than by remembering that it saw OGMarker as a
    not-understood key. i.e. by in addition to replying, "NotUnderstood", each
    side has to remember that it responded NotUnderstood to key foo. That
    seems unwise. I can think of at least one DoS attack if that really is
    what implementations do.

    Getting back to addressing the topic of the thread, what is wrong with
    this text, slightly modified from the I proposed in the first message?

    ***
    Any key not understood by the acceptor may be ignored by the acceptor
    without affecting the basic function. However, unless the value for the
    key was "NotUnderstood", the answer for a key not understood MUST be
    key=NotUnderstood. The value "NotUnderstood" for a key not understood MUST
    be considered a protocol violation.
    ***

    As I said before, my main interest is the spec point out that if for a key
    you don't understand you get the value "NotUnderstood" (i.e. the other
    side is telling you it didn't understand a key that it turns out you also
    don't understand), you don't just answer "NotUnderstood". Either
    saying nothing, or considering it a protocol violation (since if we both
    didn't understand the key it should have never gotten into the
    negotiations) are both fine options. I now favor protocol violation as if
    neither side understood the key, it should not be there. If it's there,

    something is wrong.

    Take care,

    Bill





Home

Last updated: Sun Aug 11 01:18:55 2002
11607 messages in chronological order