IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Comments on recent UDP options work

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 25 November 2018 20:34 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 0314B130E16 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:34:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com 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 gfE22cW2dRT4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:34:15 -0800 (PST)
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 4D3ED130DFC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC891A2CA for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:34:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=99JTci6uVGRYQCcuPoj4MhbmoZk=; b=AZAYc3 XsslZIGd0SWfH4AQiQXqurcOx0S0rIJLFo9XKt93xflmzrkHqnAKGm/ZqvtNuORF 7Q0ySh2Zypv2f6+KIBPhxFjWbjFMOBGF2S++lybZYg7y0UnwrEzIOzp/b/QJYA7I UjuO7jpDQhyj5l4LACfvmzF1WyjiIn6uXLSuA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=u/POuIbpfwGFKR2ix791RP0UfH+YmQKi QUmcICCk9Ld2ZgYLFHdOvI+/cQNhCR5SKt8PcgMNKJnqGCBhHwd+KK2UEDu629G9 y5sVkOorzenC14H3ilQlyY4eI8sl7BthfO/fAKhbqdxd/BFjjVdFAOainHGVyOcv 5Ev7qCTq48g=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13301A2C8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:34:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-it1-f178.google.com (unknown [209.85.166.178]) (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 758921A2C2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:34:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-it1-f178.google.com with SMTP id b5so24510249iti.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLbA23ZviS9MacSkWrSQcD1aIMk+Ctp2UbVQpkmfVnWJX8v3Zzo Tl4fG6zR96EdNde3OEHOwIsulryijj/cwqM7760=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fJjr+61IjhNACI/lmD1K9IrImDNcORO2rNwnzQo00XqSQSoQv0wP2LDHba03owalt3NVVnmWtX8oD2ktJ1mpk=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:b14c:: with SMTP id s12mr21365466jah.40.1543178049156; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:34:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACL_3VFG+B1AZfC09XTTq0Ht8tM5RoZt8zy1c5aK2NLpQQwKGA@mail.gmail.com> <DDBEA9CB-86A1-496C-BC73-F4C62D05ED05@strayalpha.com> <5BFACDAD.7050109@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <2CFB9765-6B83-4857-B4E6-355BCD04FBFC@strayalpha.com> <5BFAEB18.5020302@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5BFAEB18.5020302@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:33:57 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VGbiW-AVnHecufCfd-3P8ZM3MxLqAXtGWcTd=Mp+RoT8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VGbiW-AVnHecufCfd-3P8ZM3MxLqAXtGWcTd=Mp+RoT8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 77599F0E-F0F1-11E8-A7C8-F5C31241B9FE-06080547!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/6JUg4NPZu4vJRRPZFIeC9IiKmg0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on recent UDP options work
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:34:22 -0000

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:34 AM Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> My comment concerned doubts that this functionality should be provided by
> UDP-Options and a suggestion it may be better provided by an application
> (perhaps e.g. a tunnel protocol endpoint?). I don't see how adding this
> as a UDP-Option function helps eliminate complexity or to manage
> fragments better.

The attraction that I see for FRAG as a UDP-Option is that it offers incremental
deployability in the important case of DNS (and probably in some other cases
as well). Its use can be negotiated on a transaction-by-transaction basis. The
negotiation signal from a client that supports it (use of a null FRAG option in
a request) will be ignored by a legacy server. And an upgraded server will not
use the option unless the client negotiates it. So, upgraded client can talk to
a legacy server, and a legacy client can talk to an upgraded server, without the
need to introduce any extra protocol exchanges.

Can the same be said for a tunnel endpoint protocol?

Mike Heard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email