Subject: RE: issue 63 -- ref 6.2.1 or list explicit checks for message format

From: "Tuomas Aura" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:31:53 -0800

Jari Arkko wrote:
> I would note that there are explicit values listed for various
> fields, as well as keywords dictating the contents of the fields
> in more complex cases. Is there some specific check that you are
> missing?

I guess the real answer is that there aren't any important 
checks: it is the validness of the certificate chain that
matters, not the way in which the certificates are discovered.

Perhaps the text in 6.2.5 could be changed as follows:

   A router MUST silently discard any received Delegation Chain
   Solicitation messages that do not conform to the message
   format defined in Section 6.2.1. The contents of the Reserved 
   field, and of any unrecognized...

That is, delete the bullets altogether. Section 6.2.6 could be
changed similarly. This way, the reader will not start to think 
that there are some security-critical checks hidden somewhere 
(as I mistakenly did).

Tuomas

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the
body to <[email-masked]>.
Archive: http://standards.ericsson.net/lists/ietf-send/maillist.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:32:27 +0200

> that there are some security-critical checks hidden somewhere 

Ok. I had actually already something like this due to an
earlier issue which removed the other item from the bullet
list. But your wording is better.

--Jari