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

Joseph Touch <> Wed, 18 March 2020 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACB23A16FD; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiJHWcS4yCEZ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49A693A16FA; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=niWB8iEyLaZ+4vTvquJFl/O2Xy+Vf0b7NMBr0y8N6us=; b=jIplvL+CKSAvF8nXINDpEvHra 8iey22WIPGdxTtx06J2TT7uRqikfqaLXlykZDpORaIpkX8dPa1oFLKW74MIFSt2OoTxCbn/3aEjXQ it2hEIIfYYFrHZ7H9k8Mz2HodgEw9DYmhiQN/p/7eHo/ZbrNJm/BIbTnFgHjtXXfaq6uhU45yaWki Tc2W8tpYFDc7xIKaS4ZoSzDlmj9xp7vlRbaVm8K1Tn1pWpC9WI8Afn0s2h6j7zGQNZ47wxBJFqFNX IPgCsp3RBNAAX1iKacbyWFd7EX7hy5HwOvZVhwV4Ut3/8DXBvzun8O5KnXieR69x3uygLOy+kljeF hxj32iU9Q==;
Received: from ([]:62592 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jEa6x-002bnW-RD; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:56:04 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_65411041-0FEF-4542-ADAD-639E16EA9B13"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:55:56 -0700
Cc: "<>" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> =?utf-8?q?=3C340=5F1584143298=5F5E6C1BC2=5F340=5F169=5F1=5FDA91D669=2E71EAC?= =?utf-8?q?=25dominique=2Ebarthel=40orange=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C20200317211335=2EGR50174=40kduck=2Emit=2Eedu=3E_=3C30843=5F158?= =?utf-8?q?4487855=5F5E715DAF=5F30843=5F429=5F4=5FDA971B0C=2E72109=25dominiq?= =?utf-8?q?ue=2Ebarthel=40orange=2Ecom=3E?= <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:56:08 -0000

> On Mar 18, 2020, at 5:50 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <> wrote:
>> Indeed, the protocol parser and the SCHC rules need to know about the UDP
>> TLVs if one wants to compress them.
>> But the same is true of all the other fields. I don't think this one
>> warrants a special notice.
>> What I insist on is that, if an implementation does not know of the UDP
>> TLVs, it will not reconstruct an erroneous UDP Length, even for a packet
>> that contains these TLVs, assuming that the protocol parser checks the UDP
>> and IPv6 lengths for consistency.
> I think this last statement (“protocol parser checks the UDP
> and IPv6 lengths for consistency”) is the important point that needs to be explicitly mention in the document!

That way of phrasing it is dangerous - it implies that when the values differ there is some sort of error.

It would be more in line with current TSV efforts to standardize UDP options to say “UDP length can be compressed when it *can* be computed from the IP length” and that “it MUST NOT be compressed as computable otherwise”.