User-Defined Errors for RSVP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
08 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Chris Newman |
2012-08-22
|
08 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
2008-06-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2008-06-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2008-06-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-06-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2008-06-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Chris Newman |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot comment] For AUTH48: The new text has a number of typos, like "strngs" and "Descriprion". |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Chris Newman |
2008-06-26
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Chris Newman |
2008-05-31
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-05-31
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-08.txt |
2008-05-13
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-05-09
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
2008-05-09
|
08 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-05-08 |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Steve Hanna. |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot discuss] The IETF has a policy on character sets and languages (BCP #18, RFC 2277) that I believe would apply to this protocol. … [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. |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [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. |
2008-05-08
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-05-07
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-05-07
|
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-05-07
|
08 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-05-07
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-05-06
|
08 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-05-05
|
08 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] Based on Stephen Hanna's SecDir review: especially since RSVP packets don't usually contain ASCII strings, it might be a good idea to say … [Ballot comment] Based on Stephen Hanna's SecDir review: especially since RSVP packets don't usually contain ASCII strings, it might be a good idea to say in security considerations that the received string must be processed carefully (as it could contain e.g. control characters, printf format strings, SQL injection, or whatever). Stephen's suggested text: Like any other data received from a partially trusted party, the recipient MUST carefully check the USER_ERROR_SPEC object and its contents to make sure that it does not contain any malformed or illegal values and will not cause any buffer overruns or other processing errors that could cause reliability or security problems. The Error Description should be examined especially carefully if it is to be logged or displayed since it may eventually be processed by other code with poor error handling. Any control characters (bytes with values 0-31 and 127 decimal) or non-ASCII characters (128-255 decimal) MUST be removed. Other characters may need to be removed from the string, depending on the logging system in use and the range of characters that it can accept. If the logging or display system has escaping or another post-processing step that could give special meaning to the characters in the string, protection against injection attacks SHOULD be included in the RSVP code. Typos: In section 3, "Criticial" should be "Critical". In section 4.2, "display of logging" should be "display or logging". |
2008-05-05
|
08 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-04-28
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-28
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-05-08 by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-28
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-28
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot has been issued by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-28
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-04-28
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-04-28
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-07.txt |
2008-04-25
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-21
|
08 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-04-15
|
08 | Amanda Baber | 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. |
2008-04-12
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna |
2008-04-12
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna |
2008-04-07
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-04-07
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-04-07
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-07
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Last Call was requested by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-04-07
|
08 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-04-07
|
08 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-04-07
|
08 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-04-07
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (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. |
2008-04-07
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Draft Added by Magnus Westerlund in state Publication Requested |
2008-04-05
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-06.txt |
2008-04-01
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-05.txt |
2008-03-28
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-04.txt |
2008-02-14
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-03.txt |
2007-10-06
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-02.txt |
2007-05-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-01.txt |
2007-04-09
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-00.txt |