Subject: [Hipsec] registration protocol - failure types

From: Miriam Esteban <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:26:58 +0200

Dear all again,

I have also found this while implementing the registration protocol:

DESCRIPTION:
Failure types described in the hip-registration draft don't include a possible 
error while requesting lifetime or registration types not offered by the 
registrar.
Case 1.         Lifetime requested < Minimum Lifetime offered     or
      		      Lifetime requested > Maximum Lifetime offered  
Case 2.         Registration type != Registration type offered (In the case of 
RVS type 1) 

SUGGESTION:
Create two more failure types for these cases. 

In our implementation we use:
Case 1.	Failure Type: 1
Case 2.	Failure Type: 2

I have read in the list that other implementations of the the registration 
protocol have been done. Did you find any more error cases? What values do 
you use?

Any comments are welcome. Thanks.

Miriam

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:04:12 +0200

>                     Lifetime requested > Maximum Lifetime offered

I think in these cases just use the minimum or maximum lifetime, and  
accept the registration.  No error code is needed, AFAIK.

The draft apparently needs to be updated.

> Case 2.         Registration type != Registration type offered (In  

Yes, I think there should be an error code for this.

A table for failure types needs to be added, and the IANA
considerations section needs to be updated.

--Pekka

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:12:09 +0200

On Thursday 28 July 2005 12:04, Pekka Nikander wrote:
> > Case 1.         Lifetime requested < Minimum Lifetime offered    
> > or Lifetime requested > Maximum Lifetime offered
>
> I think in these cases just use the minimum or maximum lifetime,
> and accept the registration.  No error code is needed, AFAIK.
>

I propose to add the following sentence in the REG_REQUEST processing:

   When the registrar is requested a registration which lifetime is
   either smaller or greater than the minimum or maximum lifetime,
   respectively, then it MUST grant the registration for the minimum
   or maximum lifetime, respectivelly.

Is MUST okay?

> considerations section needs to be updated.

Here's the table until I can submit an updated version:

Failure Type    Reason
------------    --------------------------------------------
0               Registration requires additional credentials
1               Registration type unavailable
2-200           Reserved by IANA
201-255         Reserved by IANA for private use

--julien

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:38:50 +0200

>    or maximum lifetime, respectivelly.

I think SHOULD would be fine.  Sure, it could also provide some other  
lifetime on its discretion, independent on what it announced, without  
any ill effects.   Please fix the spelling of the last word.

However, in the REG_RESPONSE section I'd add

     The client MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime,
     included ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated
     in the REG_INFO parameter.  It MUST NOT expect that the returned
     lifetime will be the requested one, even in the case that the
     requested lifetime falls within the announced minimum and maximum.

(Again, be flexible in what you expect.)

>>> Case 2.         Registration type != Registration type offered
>>

Looks good.

--Pekka