IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01.txt

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org> Mon, 02 November 2015 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dfawcus@employees.org>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2D11B3338; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:23:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8vkrWNzbn2O9; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [65.50.211.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D635C1ACEF2; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A45D7888; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:23:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=selector1; bh=qaPGy3tNbJ3EqLCGHwg85pHMxbg=; b=S0 M+znRcNeYRu5gM3ydiBuuHkj1Sr1Wb6QUMWKAlvNUhqjrgUaUOeSqWrazZFVM3wS aNB/AatRUQ784ypeW8W4AEIsF944pEAkBSrEZpSdPFVol/8fFY9Dz5e7X48Gr4JA pRt/ZwTX/0TflK7t5rlDfV1DLu3c9dSjwTY4yQl2c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=AJKrDqccfr2QOFE7Ca0pqgLwyKzd fj7Md+Si1vv4NBp24sKyJkUU8ycAw/5l97YKcgNqBMZKRDol4n2N2HhZcsgtU2Ha +98fL2LGUo3IxR/STVHtUnopeS6j18dgHEjCV3qxylLhYiHC7XbsWvMLK3kjGdst RGSguAn0vjrwGOA=
Received: by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix, from userid 1736) id 8A731D7884; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:23:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:23:44 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Message-ID: <20151102072344.GA83371@cowbell.employees.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, spud <spud@ietf.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <CACL_3VF5i7FvMR53R8JwRQAW--QJz3a+T9c_Pnwqt9D-baAJ-w@mail.gmail.com> <5636FD40.4030101@bobbriscoe.net> <CALx6S36vY+E-JN7eU5hwur-W2KzYfavhYSyPbcAwZec1pA0b6w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36vY+E-JN7eU5hwur-W2KzYfavhYSyPbcAwZec1pA0b6w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/jT7XyvAnOcBXk4RLJp0TN_1o5f0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:15:47 -0800
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, spud <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01.txt
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:23:47 -0000

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:43:40pm +0900, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Please look at NIC offloads also. I am pretty certain that the most
> common flavor of checksum offload will break in this proposal since
> devices use the value in the UDP length field as the length of the
> payload to compute the checksum over.

I had assumed that is what was intended, i.e. that the bytes within
the 'option area' were not protected by the UDP checksum; so I don't
see how that would break NIC checksum offload.

> UDP Fragmentation Offload would similarly be broken,

How?

DF

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email