Re: [Spud] OS updates on embedded devices

[Caitlin Bestler <[e-mail]>]

On 4/9/15 2:52 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Brian Trammell wrote
>> What I take away from this tangent: avoiding certain types of badness is
>> probably a necessary function of any minimal common transport such as SPUD.
>> Which types of badness those are is a point for detailed discussion, but it
>> probably includes avoiding anything that looks like reflection or amplification,
>> and anything that looks like trivial state exhaustion, which we need to consider
>> very carefully in a protocol designed to make state establishment on path
>> explicit.
>>
> Agreed. In particular, "no worse than TCP" is a bit of a low bar. We need to be robust against packet injection attacks.
>
>
We should make SPUD as good as possible. But we should not *reject* a 
solution merely because
it does not achieve some ideal as long as it is "no worse than TCP" and 
provides *some* benefit.

If there are clear areas where we are "worse than TCP" then we probably 
don't want to proceed
to even an experimental standard, because as you note - TCP is a low bar 
to compare against.