IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero copy)

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 02 August 2021 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1778C3A1EC6 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com
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 7qvBSvugGnRV for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F813A1EC7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67079D25F5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:13:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc:content-type; s=sasl; bh=xdvff1egIwPaJHLw8XwEECDUJReW7JAm mhmaq92UK98=; b=S0GqwDFa13nkZRIrYPUlsD3aOGJVFEeswP5a/cQqm2YVSAQI y4jV2iq+e8nxVtT/6CCmtmNsXjcj8fVTy0RkXBDqxVQsPM/SOK17/woVYtceZATz C8IyADnpzayay+aUdgcsmcDFC7AlPc20sK6Xxus9T7cu0G99g7Pv+dzfaig=
Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0A6D25F4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:13:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-pj1-f41.google.com (unknown [209.85.216.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2895D25F1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:13:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-pj1-f41.google.com with SMTP id u9-20020a17090a1f09b029017554809f35so1020016pja.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/Y8edULXgDSvfQO+GMy254O7bxx+ZF0GEgCAbbH0BpOiVnqkH 5MiRccyEnxgFfTlIrdYYm9MoBnAmJ0xtOc0TENU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxRyFfT0/ouOpqX45bxRVvKTpzu/r1psjHDFr96jhadW5E39orA8ExwCgblZE+H1Uuka1S88lctdFgnGegM8/o=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f68f:: with SMTP id cl15mr1007166pjb.234.1627942405876; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 15:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87881B84-5FFE-43EE-BF26-66E265C63D09@gmx.de> <CDC5E98F-10B7-4BE3-B74C-7A0323226991@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDC5E98F-10B7-4BE3-B74C-7A0323226991@strayalpha.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 15:13:14 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VH-2gL8LXPt79NtSFnD7qV6g7exYE3SNVuZSfDawwSPqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VH-2gL8LXPt79NtSFnD7qV6g7exYE3SNVuZSfDawwSPqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d1312f05c89ae07e"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DC3257D4-F3DE-11EB-9F2D-FD8818BA3BAF-06080547!pb-smtp2.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/1R2zwrFeATl1cCVcdYESUJre9mY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero copy)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 22:13:34 -0000

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 12:31 PM Joe Touch wrote:

> At a minimum, because there are options that could be used in either
> place, eg. OCS, AUTH, and ENCR at least.


The per-fragment OCS icovers both the fragment data and the options. Is
there really a justification for a per-datagram version? I think not ...
though of course opinions vary ...

Mike Heard




>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email