Subject: Re: IKEv2 Correction (editorial)

From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:54:39 -0400 (EDT)

>>	2. If you say "MUST send as zero" that creates a strong temptation in
>>	   receivers to check for zero and reject the packet if a non-zero is
>>	   found.  If that is done, the whole version thing breaks.
	
That's why I assumed the spec should say
both "MUST send as zero" and "MUST ignore upon receipt",
It would be nice in general if it were understood
that that is the required behavior in fields marked as "RESERVED".
(That way specs wouldn't have to say "MUST send as zero" and "MUST ignore
on receipt" for every reserved field, it would just be assumed
by calling the field "reserved").

I assume we're not arguing over the desired behavior...just the wording.

Radia

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:53:23 -0400

>>>>> "Radia" == Radia Perlman <- Boston Center for Networking <[email-masked]>> writes:

 >>> 2. If you say "MUST send as zero" that creates a strong
 >>> temptation in receivers to check for zero and reject the packet
 >>> if a non-zero is found.  If that is done, the whole version thing
 >>> breaks.
	
 Radia> That's why I assumed the spec should say both "MUST send as
 Radia> zero" and "MUST ignore upon receipt", It would be nice in
 Radia> general if it were understood that that is the required
 Radia> behavior in fields marked as "RESERVED".  (That way specs
 Radia> wouldn't have to say "MUST send as zero" and "MUST ignore on
 Radia> receipt" for every reserved field, it would just be assumed by
 Radia> calling the field "reserved").

 Radia> I assume we're not arguing over the desired behavior...just
 Radia> the wording.

Right.

I did some searching in the RFC database and it appears to be less
consistent than I remembered.

Ok, so long as it's explicitly stated that the receiver is NOT allowed
to check the reserved fields, I'm satisfied.

   paul