Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-daiya-tsvwg-udp-options-protocol-number-00.txt

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 23 July 2023 17:37 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 485D7C14CE54 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.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 06gMSJAg_pod for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82205C14CE53 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D5619C523 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:37:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc:content-type; s=sasl; bh=blf2Ee0K0zrwCW1x2kJqOvG89DB2HAFb jVE/ydEOcUM=; b=NkjnLSTtn6N/HI+1zjuf2qvR/hK5nN2qrlLxx42ND39UNJXu +GZ5xb6qMGfUWPlHDVeL/aBz3vbgDYMU9NxVWMruOGK5EfDlFrQswD2qzhFwa+5y IB/hx8x2wVm27Z9GpLtQU3gDuCl7kg+2v86vu/85Y66di3Pk199KJ5ohriE=
Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCED19C522 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:37:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-ej1-f48.google.com (unknown [209.85.218.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEC0A19C521 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:37:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-ej1-f48.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-99357737980so612799566b.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZQ32VoCXITTJ17YOeANbXsQDndfxUStXTYMFM4XOIo7hbOjqVs 3Zxsq2HH3pTZu8mWqxc0RjZyH9kMEa3MuzyS6Sg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlEGTXzeL8iVLVPqpsZtN3u9RRrvH9mRHkZ5xCXwjTxDDOe0xIUT1yOgA7IYhOjpxZztETb8L6XPEWmqtZ7gFAg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:31d8:b0:98e:3b89:5dc6 with SMTP id f24-20020a17090631d800b0098e3b895dc6mr7472803ejf.48.1690133855812; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <168903260541.49852.5537122429979483346@ietfa.amsl.com> <591bfafb-ff0a-427d-5e14-0de776437fd6@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <CALx6S359UD3DJF=WbviOjxNw=1eK5pm3JPehQaj=z2vzmR8iHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S359UD3DJF=WbviOjxNw=1eK5pm3JPehQaj=z2vzmR8iHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:37:22 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VGn_08G85R+G0MuRtBYLckMzrqQYzsK229d5EBKNcKR6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VGn_08G85R+G0MuRtBYLckMzrqQYzsK229d5EBKNcKR6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Daiya Yuyama <daiya@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Cc: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000019430a06012af491"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9D0979C4-297F-11EE-970A-307A8E0A682E-06080547!pb-smtp2.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Cyw4-x7--PgLhQQF_gYYx4wBZO4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-daiya-tsvwg-udp-options-protocol-number-00.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: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 17:37:45 -0000

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 10:10 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
> If correct host processing of the UDP payload depends on interpreting
> the Protocol Number Option then it will need to be an Unsafe option.

+1, and IMO that's true whether or not it modifies payload (that opinion
is not universally shared; see discussion in the secdir review thread).

> The requirement of Safe options is that they can be ignored and that
> the UDP payload is treated the same regardless of whether the options
> were processed or not, Unsafe options must be successfully processed
> before the UDP payload is processed.

Yes. It is perhaps worth noting that one of the downsides of making
the Protocol Number into an UNSAFE option is that it will need to be
hidden from legacy UDP receivers by a FRAG option. On the other hand,
doing so would address the point that I raised in

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/HkXxKbCSCK5PWXMQ7tZxnNzCNus/

Mike Heard