Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-03

From: David Mandelberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:11:59 -0400

On 04/01/2015 01:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> why are you trying to rescue the case where a router (or cache) upgrades
> versions in the middle of a session?
>   o upgrade should be very rare
>   o reload is relatively cheap
>   o and you are generating kinky corner cases to patch it
> 
> session reset.

I wasn't trying to rescue it, I was trying to ensure a session reset.

> the bloody router (or cache) will have reloaded anyway
> and does not have the old state.

Either end can upgrade to support version 1 before the other is ready;
version 1 is only negotiated after both ends support it. I know that our
cache implementation does not lose state unless the database is manually
cleared, but I can't speak for other cache or router implementations. I
agree that the simplest way to fix this issue is to require a reset
query when a new version is negotiated, but I don't think that can be
done by relying on state being lost.

For reference, here's the text that I originally proposed:

   The cache MUST maintain a separate session for each protocol version
it supports, and a router MUST NOT attempt to reuse session information
across multiple protocol versions.

If one of those requirements is too burdensome, either of them would be
sufficient by itself to ensure that a reset query happens when the
negotiated protocol version changes.

-- 
David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn
http://david.mandelberg.org/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:39:35 -0700

> it supports, and a router MUST NOT attempt to reuse session
> information across multiple protocol versions.

why should there ever be two versions running at the same time between a
cache and a router?

randy

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:21:16 -0400

David, I think a simpler way to express the semantics you want is just
to consider the protocol version number to be part of the session
identifier.  That way, a version 0 session can never match a version 1
session, by definition, full stop.

---

From: David Mandelberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:58:50 -0500

> why should there ever be two versions running at the same time 

For any pair of (cache, router), there would only be one version at a 
time. As I understand it though, a cache can use the same session 
information for all of its routers, which may not all use the same 
version.

---

From: David Mandelberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:01:51 -0500

> session, by definition, full stop.

Sure, that works. (BTW, I think Oliver also came up with something 
similar.)

Alternatively, how about this? ;)

     Routers and caches SHOULD CONSIDER [RFC6919] the implications of 
serial queries across protocol versions.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:15:48 -0700

> As I understand it though, a cache can use the same session
> information for all of its routers

that is not my understanding

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:16:54 -0700

> serial queries across protocol versions.

s/consider/consider it an error/

randy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:49:02 -0400

The wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-03 ended just before IETF92.  Then this energetic discussion followed the end of the wglc, but seems to have substance.

Do the authors have a clear picture of the changes needed to the draft to proceed with a new version?

--Sandy

On Apr 1, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Rob Austein <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr