Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22.txt

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Wed, 14 June 2023 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 CFBA8C14CE42 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland.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 fcPtETglQOxX for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32d.google.com (mail-ot1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F201C14CE3B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6b29c972e00so3548774a34.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland.com; s=google; t=1686712087; x=1689304087; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=k+Gd8Ecgx+ZMjZhIA2JK6vgAxNwxZ1HZqyVwdv/TG98=; b=YmRMg86JA9bJcr7pAJ4zP0f2j/2uVDWELMF7CkMP6IMkUlLe/q4UDiH/tNqnAVxx41 XGZZPWbMxynOdnT2FQQq7d+irj3MuyV2FCJK32+7Xv3fZwrpgimgvtO1FGpZqE5+HMf8 cZBg5hB9d9CNB0zM0lmTCZ06O2CKqQcZZgCApMf3adC5+h/8QO3OpTnxSOXCcC70TKGs Vb75N3aiGy7YWzxSu7E1rOSqVvUSobGYCoH9CW+jlBcQ6mHUV1vl4H7K6H1sYvccxEf9 FSxWWxSZL/AYPYjVHGPsXlUG3igQM47avjhmygfnu80OGG7OhSayON1BrFlKhgkxwSbI g+9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686712087; x=1689304087; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=k+Gd8Ecgx+ZMjZhIA2JK6vgAxNwxZ1HZqyVwdv/TG98=; b=Vv2mVM90hUvjWGYvH6LPQK3vpKBOfpgx2TpjJQxn2FZx5oZxaNGSBkzTHdrJxYItaz s+YwX7/qpJM0+SmWIJNx/Vsx+X5K1MgozOSHUGjzdjQxeX7ycHtvcwyzXqwwfroMlSfj OFHqMFcYsKcrYw8mUSM64Fhv6aT1pixlcSa+APszQN2u3oCm+jS13nsGMmeMmg4OTN6W 1SekFNyUvkQk5X4YESJ2VVmAfFmf/ZkqLrgniDhKSDzYJruUyjidNKIcFoag0+8m14EL +KEk+lspviUcQT1gmv4Ibli4gqWnHnOgKwSPZcHrJrFBse9iAt+NSY+iaZMVi36zC2zz i/Lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxFsdZuphIuC1O9NmPyhE1jf4LlT76ivffTZWwY32x+yd/tdAko lrd/J4AaXKuPMRLbnERi4I4fOM9J5tMynyUcnBzNhcs9mVoOHKPfwjo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5dYdWCA8baiPKdBcOQ1KP5iLRrHYq0oRDqk6AnglaXknjwJMKtmXgy4auDy/PaCr5ejlT3etg0mT/GKvzBxVk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:9a6:b0:39a:be43:6f13 with SMTP id e6-20020a05680809a600b0039abe436f13mr9051109oig.43.1686712087144; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <168636765932.60931.17876556014123415544@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALx6S3574S-GVuT4=W3PfXOjyKOpGTw_uKSdp1pGMa0EStKuZQ@mail.gmail.com> <903D0F56-EEAE-4081-8365-A514D957B6F1@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <903D0F56-EEAE-4081-8365-A514D957B6F1@strayalpha.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:07:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34V_pNdA+ROwkcL_cyExm+PPS2rz8CVpqA6NUPmaokvjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, i-d-announce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/2oklOBf-x6UeVGJdlS6N81MUokI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22.txt
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 03:08:12 -0000

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 7:34 PM touch@strayalpha.com
<touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
> Text was there so the result was unambiguous; I agree, it’d be better treating it as malformed and halting option processing (while passing the user data up, if any - same as any other malformed option set).
>
> Do we want to add similar treatment for multiple copies of experimental options with the same ExIDs?

Yes, it's probably best to be consistent

Tom

>
> Joe
>
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
>
> On Jun 13, 2023, at 3:59 PM, Tom Herbert <tom=40herbertland.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Form the draft:
>
> "If an option other than these occurs more than once, a receiver MUST
> interpret other than these occurs more than once, a receiver MUST
> interpret
> only the first instance of that option and MUST ignore all others."
>
> I don't think this is a preferred behavior. Since all options after
> the first are ignored, I don't see how any useful work can be done by
> sending the same option to more than once. Furthermore, a sender would
> KNOW that multiple instances of the same option would always be
> ignored, and I don't see any other purpose for doing that than DOS
> attack. Note that ignoring repeated options is not processing cost, in
> this case it's actually fairly involved since we need to have a
> conditional check and probably set a bitmap for every option.
>
> I think the behavior should either be to process all the copies of the
> option (repeated occurrences of the same option might be deemed useful
> someday), or treat a repeated options as malformed UDP options
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:28 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working
> Group (TSVWG) WG of the IETF.
>
>   Title           : Transport Options for UDP
>   Author          : Joe Touch
>   Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22.txt
>   Pages           : 44
>   Date            : 2023-06-09
>
> Abstract:
>   Transport protocols are extended through the use of transport header
>   options. This document extends UDP by indicating the location,
>   syntax, and semantics for UDP transport layer options.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/
>
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
>
>