Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 17 March 2020 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B6D3A0778; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xt0s6g9H1Hrc; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BC733A078A; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 02HLDZC0029044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:13:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:13:35 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: dominique.barthel@orange.com
Cc: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "lp-wan@ietf.org" <lp-wan@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc.all@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200317211335.GR50174@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158152010913.17982.18347318138768196852@ietfa.amsl.com> =?utf-8?q?=3C340=5F1584143298=5F5E6C1BC2=5F340=5F169=5F1=5FDA91D669=2E71EAC?= =?utf-8?q?=25dominique=2Ebarthel=40orange=2Ecom=3E?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3C340=5F1584143298=5F5E6C1BC2=5F340=5F169=5F1=5FDA91?= =?utf-8?q?D669=2E71EAC=25dominique=2Ebarthel=40orange=2Ecom=3E?=
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/MgOyyXoCrqdaTIbLKMFS35SnBIA>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 21:13:47 -0000

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:48:18PM +0000, dominique.barthel@orange.com wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> This is the response by the ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc co-authors
> to the observation below by Joseph Touch.
> You are right that Section 10 of ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc only
> shows how to compress IPv6/UDP packets that have no extensions.
> 
> However, the SCHC specification in Section 7.1 states
> "It is assumed that
>    there is a protocol parser alongside SCHC that is able to identify
>    all the fields encountered in the headers to be compressed, and to
>    label them with a Field ID."
> 
> Furthermore, Section 7.3 states
> "If any
>          header field of the packet being examined cannot be matched
>          with a Field Description with the correct FID, the Rule MUST be
>          disregarded.  If any Field Description in the Rule has a FID
>          that cannot be matched to one of the header fields of the
>          packet being examined, the Rule MUST be disregarded."
> 
> It follows that, if an IPv6 packet does contain the new UDP TLVs
> introduced by draft-tsvwg-udp-options, it will not match a Rule destined
> to compress the IPv6/UDP headers and that does not have these TLVs as part
> of the Field Descriptors.
> Therefore, it will no be compressed by that Rule and will not be
> decompressed with a wrong UDP Length at the receive end.
> 
> By contrast, if a Rule destined to compress the IPv6/UDP headers does have
> these UDP TLVs as part of the Field Descriptors, it is responsible for
> reconstructing the UDP Length properly. This can be achieved by means
> already provided by SCHC, such as sending the value over the wire or
> matching it to an expected constant, etc.
> 
> In conclusion, the SCHC compression mechanism, if properly implemented, is
> fully compatible with draft-tsvwg-udp-options.

This "if properly implemented" seems pretty critical.  Do we need to leave
a reminder that implementations have to know about UDP TLVs in order to
properly identify all fields in the headers to be compressed?

-Ben