User-Defined Errors for RSVP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-08

[Ballot discuss] The IETF has a policy on character sets and languages (BCP #18, RFC 2277) that I believe would apply to this protocol. If ...

[Ballot discuss]
The IETF has a policy on character sets and languages (BCP #18, RFC
2277) that I believe would apply to this protocol. If you believe BCP 18
/ RFC 2277 does not apply, you need to make the argument why and
preferably do so in the document.

While I applaud the realization that numeric codes alone are not
sufficient for debugging real-world product interactions, moving to the
richer solution (pairing numeric codes with freeform text and perhaps
parameters) comes with issues.  Do you allow multi-line text as is
useful if the error relates to a multi-line element or is complex to
explain clearly?  Do you allow text in the native language of the
admins/operators?  Do you tag the text with a language?

In the SMTP world, we do get complaints about the English-only nature of
the protocol-level error text, and with Spam making it more important to
generate protocol-level errors instead of DSNs, these complaints will
only increase over time.  I expect we'll have to retro-fit language
support at some point and it will be painful (yes, there is a draft on
this floating around).

My advise would be:

1. Allow for UTF-8/Net-Unicode (RFC 5198) so you never have to retro-fit
it, but encourage implementations to stick to single-line printable
US-ASCII whenever feasible.

2. Provide a way to tag the error with a language tag (BCP 47, RFC
4646).  I can be talked out of this one as there is a complexity
tradeoff here, but it will be painful to retro-fit if you ever need it
later so do consider this seriously.

3. Suggest logging systems that are not UTF-8 capable or systems to
display the errors that are not UTF-8 capable encode according to RFC
5137 / BCP 137.  Note that this also addresses the security
considerations that were raised by others.

Thankfully, the RFCs I mention cover most of the nasty issues (including
security ones) so this can be done primarily by reference.

[Ballot discuss] A discuss-discuss that I may clear after getting more information. The definition of the "Error description" field employs US-ASCII. I question the idea ...

[Ballot discuss]
A discuss-discuss that I may clear after getting more information.
The definition of the "Error description" field employs US-ASCII. I
question the idea of introducing new protocols or new fields that
employ ASCII; wouldn't UTF-8 make more sense?

But how useful this would be in this case depends on the intended
purpose. The spec does not clearly say that this is information
that could be displayed to the end user. Is it? If not, ASCII is
fine. If yes, please be more clear about it and transport UTF-8.
The current says "this information is typically printable", which
does not tell me much about how I should implement it on my
device.

IANA Last Call comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters ...

IANA Last Call comments:

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
sub-registry "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes"

Error Code Meaning Reference
TBD  User Error Spec [RFC-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-06]

This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes:
0 = Further details in User Error Spec [RFC-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-06]

Action #2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
sub-registry "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"


Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
TBD (192-247 range) User Error Spec [RFC-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-06]

Class Types or C-types:
1 User-Defined Error [RFC-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-06]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does ...

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Magnus Westerlund is Document Shepherd of draft-ietf-tsvwg-user-error
that is intended to be published as proposed standard. The shepherd
believes this document is ready for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
         
This document has had adequate review, but not more. It has been last
called in CCAMP and MPLS to ensure that also RSVP TE users are aware.
         

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?
         
No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No issues.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?
         
It represents a few individuals. The WG last call had to be prolonged to
get sufficient number of people to actually indicate that they where
positive to publication.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
         
NO.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
         
Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
         
  Yes. No references to drafts.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
         
Yes.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?
         
No formal language used.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
           
           
  The Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] defines an
  ERROR_SPEC object for communicating errors.  That object has a
  defined format that permits the definition of 256 error codes.  As
  RSVP has been developed and extended, the convention has been to be
  conservative in communicating errors.  Further no provision for user
  defined errors exists in RSVP. This document defines such an extension
  that allows user or manufacturer specific error indications in addition
  to the regular code.           

Working Group Summary

  This document was WG last called in TSVWG, CCAMP and MPLS to cover
  all WG that works with RSVP. The consensus was not disputed but not
  particular large.
           

Document Quality

  This document has gotten descent review. No known implementations.