Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 15:36 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <02060b294609539c1be54e89b1510ceb64ce87b2.camel@ericsson.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 10:36:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcfYtS0wDv3nr5Q6rC_ROx2tmTk09WEJ5sU9KYS+3M+4sA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?
To: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003301805ae7ea3d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/z93uJj3pdY-2HaOuJ-wWxms23mA>
Precedence: list

Hi all,

I had a somewhat related question/comment on UDP/QUIC relationship.

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.

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

If these issues were discussed before please give me a link so I can check.

Regards,
Behcet

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:35 AM Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (Without my AD hat, instead as a contributor to MASQUE)
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:19 +0100, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> > However, there is a concrete use case in the IETF for exchanging QUIC
> packets
> > not in plain old UDP datagrams - MASQUE [1]. Perhaps that could be a
> suitable
> > venue for some of the things you have in mind?
>
> But, MASQUE will provide UDP/IP semantics for a end-to-end QUIC connection
> over
> MASQUE. As mentiond by Martin, QUIC is dependent on some lower layer
> functions
> and that is why I am trying to start a discussion about the need to
> preserve
> these services/functions in MASQUE. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-masque-transport-issues/
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? John Ericson
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Martin Thomson
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Mark Nottingham
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Willy Tarreau
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Lucas Pardue
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Salz, Rich
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Ian Swett
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Christian Huitema
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Roberto Peon
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Lars Eggert
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? John Ericson
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Magnus Westerlund
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Behcet Sarikaya
UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the specifi… Lars Eggert
Re: UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the spe… Behcet Sarikaya
Re: UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the spe… Christian Huitema
Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Jana Iyengar