IETF Logo Mail Archive

UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 04 September 2020 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD943A0E66 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JT2aO8Y7NPzB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF65C3A0E4C for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:7401:c34d:ce06:a544] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:7401:c34d:ce06:a544]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44593611669; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:56:10 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1599234970; bh=ZnJ6dsJCdCJ2qQXi6YiV3uqKZ19pqoKBPOQjnvsp8RE=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=vt8p6pwEIq59LxYP3XLclEwHKFYp7rTXCEkwwqhAAkNDNXkou67zzByLno7Mn9d6f o7pzmMVFGayWVzfV6D39nWa2LFGDihxJ3awVQZEaLnoHQJxRJsxcTi5mhZLAog8eUB VOeDIszwcZvcIDdZYTmxNjQR12aySdMmJhW4Am4A=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <A9D1260B-EC0F-4F48-9B13-D528FEB12562@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B25F67B5-CA98-4B14-82F4-BF4B9D1BAA16"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 18:56:09 +0300
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcfYtS0wDv3nr5Q6rC_ROx2tmTk09WEJ5sU9KYS+3M+4sA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
References: <1ce1b329-78c0-42c4-aec7-db19b74742eb@www.fastmail.com> <2bac14c6-a543-454f-a0f3-d77258c2428b@www.fastmail.com> <CALGR9oa1y59huKSx+AY3OnMveN1Bm2xChZ=cbgaw+7jxvxQG5A@mail.gmail.com> <02060b294609539c1be54e89b1510ceb64ce87b2.camel@ericsson.com> <CAC8QAcfYtS0wDv3nr5Q6rC_ROx2tmTk09WEJ5sU9KYS+3M+4sA@mail.gmail.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 44593611669.A16FD
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/a765-8Z9EF_9YOHaUfLitW9YVP0>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:56:47 -0000

Hi,

On 2020-9-4, at 18:36, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUIC draft mentions UDP in many places, it says QUIC is UDP-based but in the draft RFC 768 is not listed as a reference informative/normative.

I opened https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4073 to fix that - thank you for noticing.

> Second, probably more importantly, UDP header has the fields source/destination port and checksum. These are not mentioned in the draft.
> I wonder why?

What would you expect the drafts to say about checksums and ports?

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email