[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

> On Aug 10, 2024, at 20:35, Tero Kivinen wrote: > >  > Perhaps instead of reason text we have generic enumeration of close > reasons like we have now, but in addition to that we have 32-bit > vendor specific reason code. The vendors could then use that vendor > specific code field to put in so

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Tero Kivinen wrote: > Michael Richardson writes: >> If we are going to rely on the enum alone, then it needs to cover all sorts >> of cases that might be specific to some implementations, while other >> implementations would have a more general code. > Perhaps instead of rea

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Michael Richardson writes: > If we are going to rely on the enum alone, then it needs to cover all sorts > of cases that might be specific to some implementations, while other > implementations would have a more general code. Perhaps instead of reason text we have generic enumeration of close reas

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

> On Aug 10, 2024, at 20:30, Tero Kivinen wrote: > > Christian Hopps writes: >> This example doesn't make sense to me, it seems contrived to make >> some point but it's not realistic. >> >> People aren't contacting random IPsec servers that are >> mis-configured for their users. If the user

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Christian Hopps writes: > This example doesn't make sense to me, it seems contrived to make > some point but it's not realistic. > > People aren't contacting random IPsec servers that are > mis-configured for their users. If the user wouldn't understand the > above language then the operator wou

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Paul, now I will use this color for my remarks. By the way, I think that it would be more helpful to the user if you include “Related SPI” field in your notify – the SPI of the SA that caused the deletion of this SA. In case of INITIAL_CONTACT this might he

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 3:32 AM Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > (I think gmail is reaching its limits on careful quoting context, hope I > get it all right) > > > > I will mark my replies with this color. > Thanks, that was very helpful! > > Will it help your debuggi

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

> > It just comes up to my mind that the “string” type is widely used in > > YANG modules. But I didn’t see any with a language indictor. I wonder > > how YANG modules handle this issue. > > > > I don’t know. Perhaps those strings are not transferred on > > the wire and are not presented t

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

"Valery Smyslov" writes: Hi William, Hi Valery, I would also add that if this field is left, then the issues with its language must be addressed. In particular, a compliance with BCP18 is needed. It just comes up to my mind that the “string” type is widely used in Y

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi William, Hi Valery, I would also add that if this field is left, then the issues with its language must be addressed. In particular, a compliance with BCP18 is needed. It just comes up to my mind that the “string” type is widely used in YANG modules. But I didn’

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Valery, I would also add that if this field is left, then the issues with its language must be addressed. In particular, a compliance with BCP18 is needed. It just comes up to my mind that the “string” type is widely used in YANG modules. But I didn’t see any with a languag

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

"Valery Smyslov" writes: >> humans are capable of reading text in a language w/o needing a tag to > identify it. > > I emphatically disagree. If I send you the following reason message, > will it help you? > > Сервер отключен для пусконаладочных работ на три часа This example doesn't make sen

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi William, Hi, I’ve read the threads, and to avoid the long email page I try to summarize my opinions below. 1. I also support making this document Informational or Experimental. 2. Through the discussions, I feel that even IPsec experts will have inconsistencies and ambiguities

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Paul, (I think gmail is reaching its limits on careful quoting context, hope I get it all right) I will mark my replies with this color. As I wrote in the message to Chris, if we use any human-readable text in the protocol, then we MUST support multip

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

> >> humans are capable of reading text in a language w/o needing a tag to > > identify it. > > > > I emphatically disagree. If I send you the following reason message, > > will it help you? > > > > Сервер отключен для пусконаладочных работ на три часа > > This example doesn't make sense to me, it

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi, I’ve read the threads, and to avoid the long email page I try to summarize my opinions below. 1. I also support making this document Informational or Experimental. 2. Through the discussions, I feel that even IPsec experts will have inconsistencies and ambiguities in their understanding of

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

"Valery Smyslov" writes: Hi Chris, > Hi, > > I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I > tried to express at IETF120, but due to lack of time they were not > responded to. > > 1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My > primary question - >

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Valery Smyslov wrote: > 2. The list of reasons looks to me both incomplete and excessive at the same > time. If we are going to rely on the enum alone, then it needs to cover all sorts of cases that might be specific to some implementations, while other implementations would have a more

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

(I think gmail is reaching its limits on careful quoting context, hope I get it all right) On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:49 AM Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:18 AM Valery Smyslov > wrote: > > Hi, > > I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info th

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Paul, On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:18 AM Valery Smyslov < smyslov.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I tried to express at IETF120, but due to lack of time they were not responded to. 1. I'm very much co

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Chris, > > Hi, > > > > I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I > > tried to express at IETF120, but due to lack of time they were not > > responded to. > > > > 1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My > > primary question - > > in what lan

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:18 AM Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi, > > I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I tried to > express at IETF120, > but due to lack of time they were not responded to. > > 1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My primary > q

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

"Valery Smyslov" writes: Hi, I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I tried to express at IETF120, but due to lack of time they were not responded to. 1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My primary question - in what language this free