IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] OCS option in draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 12 March 2019 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 DCEA81224E8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 wsJFdEkhV6Xf for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 912C212796F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ruVbWZ7OWE37xq7kKAyzqpxZqsOIAB0SwYKJnGqitro=; b=smN9BK7R52xuTh+Mr4Ub+IhUT 8Zw4lz6BjyFCnPmg88AuTmMLN4gG1SKvAbExjbw8J/wkmGLWDbUNpP5WYppGdRkIWShOVtiuBUW63 P6ZcvFAR6TCxuL/cijN0RfmLaNf/41nK1m59BxMDEXUYmE73QILJXyn0TX4erfkdtWrxM2AWg9OFd VGt72b2iOTThPEPvfgj8cw+kep5/lAmH2g4cBuTIxZe01kY8S0xeEpsLmLMZVcZG5V/kuQ+x9FJNc 0j8GQHqkIs+N2lpn7Fpifp2vPT5h5kh9aFITjF4/gKff3TIL17sD30VGbXobi8aXkOaUk3NXI/7qW YE3uySAHg==;
Received: from [::1] (port=56074 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1h3q9h-000HRv-2b; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:45:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_98edd3394e3010dd2742b8e4aa9395f5"
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:45:53 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Raffaele Zullo <raffaele@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <99f56dc354f68bb0fbacde4f439c1b6b@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <CACL_3VFg-EWCYHZ4+kYV30vjNzPs90ysAu5SCdLNb+9OPxE+3g@mail.gmail.com> <B1D19ABC-428B-42D8-AE97-BF3B967B1140@strayalpha.com> <20190311221839.GA92478@bugle.employees.org> <134F56B0-D4D2-4159-8268-2A9CDB9DD0CC@strayalpha.com> <99f56dc354f68bb0fbacde4f439c1b6b@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <c55c0f03edf88b5191f37daa409e8aa1@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.3
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/B4oeZkpagdl4gkAMDCFW7F1A7_8>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] OCS option in draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:46:02 -0000

On 2019-03-12 09:43, Raffaele Zullo wrote:

> On 2019-03-12 01:41, Joe Touch wrote: On Mar 11, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> The only use I could see for leaving surplus for non option use
> would be in the case of there being an option indicating
> 'the rest of the surplus is X', for some X.
> 
> So really what we lose is the ability to have an option of more
> than 255 bytes

Hello,

To leave it open to Options longer than 255

Why not declare that a Length = 0 means that the 3rd and 4th bytes
contain the Length of the Option? 

We could allow that, or we could define a new option of "long option
follows" - or - as you note below - just let EOL do its job ;-) 

Joe 

>> We can easily declare one final option that is "remainder".
>> 
>> Note that comes with some caveats:
>> - it wouldn't have a length; like NOP, EOL, and OCS, it would just be a flag.
>> - it would not be defined as being included in the OCS (if it were, it
>> would be a conventional option IMO), which means any use of that area
>> would need to consider a checksum area that can be used like CCO (NOTE
> 
> AFAIU
> 
> EOL already works as an Option "remainder"
> 
> Raffaele Zullo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email