Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Thu, 04 April 2024 21:49 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 E17A1C151099; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f15BVpYdFjR1; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EE3FC151084; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F3C1E06D; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:49:20 -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=pY75w5cTQa7fWYaWKd3XnAFve0k6T8m2 iyqsuHdCgfU=; b=SpvD0wj5k9b4mVKSgqkBYNywWYqz63S4dJ8DaWpt2sR6pmvr 6mfCReNu6hpqZKBQ1hp4HIqWBJ20cojzFHnMGw5deAKK0L0yGZwxHu7P7uYV6O1z WI5RRg0n8bOm2WeuS4RQl+lgCS1SQsxX3Rn9Hj7Q+3kFKHdrXLG/gRa4sgE=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AF71E06C; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:49:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-ed1-f51.google.com (unknown [209.85.208.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E4D41E06B; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:49:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-ed1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e1baf0380so1690373a12.3; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUnmGYBPYiBbpvDzQZTgtia9SB81kMyrZYNnzgUG5LXFz/6NZYPe1Ceaja/pj1rz9Ml7MyHtDhJxDNJ53c0ixSmr74x0QQa8wWIz43TnxJ2MbvEfs1BQnp71UFrt4QiWzps2o8TnQ0ViKo=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzxYCy6WmkqIayGTtk5zj/x45S/k2Uv+bMoXHuMQQdo2zR8GqhY xrA4Qvr5+f73njv6YVSLs8CmbLrs2/5rJt1QrKfifOBHPz/oeZCyJLlLJCbCRLQjiZ/idsOIzbz cngycox8G924dI3qWJqReqq0c86g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IELVazrkzvtJ3VGcSimTQJmNcsNC3+K0Dey+3Roug2qQ2cGd3s07A7thWWYmBRRW/Oow64nzSQPvKKxzTx3b8Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:cd99:0:b0:56c:2785:ca34 with SMTP id p25-20020a50cd99000000b0056c2785ca34mr2928039edi.5.1712267355128; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxSpwRF5E3Xc_hotgvCSdKVe4BY_zRUKAzHvW48JEtWqTA@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VGOLkJU1m7pqSXRRouCKwdQ6yrbmaPwoa22Jr-N3FZNzA@mail.gmail.com> <DF6188E5-9323-47A4-B359-6C6CA8ECD7A8@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF6188E5-9323-47A4-B359-6C6CA8ECD7A8@strayalpha.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:49:03 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VGKb2BnJPThkz16PO-XJfpFudmdXPV6AvkKxnOPwke1pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VGKb2BnJPThkz16PO-XJfpFudmdXPV6AvkKxnOPwke1pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076936f06154c4ff5"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2F691AD8-F2CD-11EE-A3EA-F515D2CDFF5E-06080547!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/2UWg0XswYswa1Whe8EYfIBuQ-rU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 21:49:28 -0000

Greetings Joe,

>From my perspective, it seemed to be out of place where it appeared,
though not untrue. My understanding was that the reassembled diagram
datagram was equivalent to the pre-fragmentation datagram shown in Figure
11.2, and would include whatever NOPS (or EOLS) were originally present.
Thus, the MRDS size would include them. Subsequent processing would strip
them before they go to the user. I think that any dispute here is not on
what is supposed to happen, but how to present it.

And since I haven't said it so far, thanks for the hard work on -32. I owe
a comprehensive review, and that is on my to-do liist.

Best,

Mike Heard

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:34 PM touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>
wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> Thanks Martin for the detailed review. I’m hoping we can split it out so
> the thread of each piece can be tracked in Github, so I’ll wait for that
> before responding further.
>
> On the point below, can you (both) help me understand the error you see?
>
> It is intended to be clarified as:
>
> "NOPs are not reported to the user, [regardless of] whether [they are]
> used [i.e., part of the options that appear] per-datagram or per-fragment
> ([the latter] as defined in Section 11.4).”
>
> Joe
>
> On Apr 4, 2024, at 2:22 PM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> (11.6) "NOPs are not reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or
>> per-fragment (as defined in Section 11.4)."
>>
>> I think this is a cut-and-paste error.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>