Re: [tsvwg] Alternative version of the UDP FRAG option

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 5:32 PM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm trying to catch up with all the proposals and create a summary.
>
> That said:
>
> 1) the notion of soft state and its impact on the protocol is already
> mentioned in the draft, as are its limitations
>
>
> Joe,

Is a normative description of UDP option negotiation forthcoming?

2) we definitely need to stick to some design principles. Some are
> already proposed in the draft, but the discussion of late has strayed
> far afield of those. In particular, the draft already has a list of
> rules for when to drop packets based on various option properties.
>

But other existing standard protocols that have options already use a
certain set design principles (like skip option bit in HBH and dest
options). It's not clear to me at least why those aren't being followed.

Tom


> If we want to reopen that can of worms, so be it - but until we do, we
> need to operate within those parameters. That includes rules for when to
> drop (largely determined by receiver configuration of a socket, never
> determined by what a sender adds or a flag in the fields).
>
> Joe
>
>