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

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

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 [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>
>