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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Right, this sentence about NOPs seems out of place in the section about
MRDS.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:49 PM C. M. Heard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>