Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-05.txt
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 28 February 2017 22:21 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 4CF701295CC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7CivF2pHFVWG for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DB67128AC9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.81] (nib.isi.edu [128.9.160.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1SMLTWi015074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:21:29 -0800 (PST)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <148823787288.13843.6091386736320524682.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <800de1a6-cb9b-f22b-946a-8b6832fc9a05@isi.edu> <20170228163751.GA89477@cowbell.employees.org> <7d58ead9-2d1a-d35c-7cd2-90526918838c@isi.edu> <20170228204607.GA71184@cowbell.employees.org> <CALx6S36RvV0i4VSO=F5g6f4r4i2_VYmN6K1wygJZY7EsthFKEA@mail.gmail.com> <fed51ce6-d852-9f4d-91ff-08d69e80e2a0@isi.edu> <20170228214648.GB4674@cowbell.employees.org> <CALx6S36Q1=2GPKQudPr=-ZBr4RuSE+AatGSi5M7ssshTzwkpjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <58848ac9-3b90-1c39-8f69-7d439bc90d2b@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:21:29 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36Q1=2GPKQudPr=-ZBr4RuSE+AatGSi5M7ssshTzwkpjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: v1SMLTWi015074
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/E1HB7061q22zog-pZe5da2Phk8M>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-05.txt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 28 Feb 2017 22:21:55 -0000
Hi, Tom, The issue of whether a reassembled unit should have an integrity checksum depends on whom you ask. SEAL/AERO include one, but other protocols do not. Again, I'm open to figuring this out. I'd like a lightweight solution where possible, of course. Joe On 2/28/2017 2:19 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Derek Fawcus > <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 01:17:16p.m. -0800, Joe Touch wrote: >>> Hi, Tom, >>> >>> OK - so I think you and Derek are basically arguing for an Internet >>> checksum to verify reassembly, rather than using a new or stronger one. >> Actually, I made a mistake. I attributed to Tom what was I believe >> was actually suggested by C. M. Heard - namely the suggestion to >> combine FRAG+LITE as a way of allowing existing hosts to discard fragments. >> >> In that he was suggesting adding an overall reassembled checksum, >> which would be necessary as otherwise the repurposed reassembled >> Lite payloads would not have a checksum. I was simply pointing >> out that in that scenario, the same could be achieved with a >> single CHECKSUM option, carried in only one of the FRAG packets. >> >> So there would be no need to change the FRAG header definiton to >> add a checksum there. >> >> In the normal case of reassembling FRAG'ed payloads, I don't see >> that an overall checksum gains us anything. >> >> Possibly an overall CRC would have some value? That would seem to >> require a second type of ACS-like option, i.e REASSEMBLE-ACS? >> Again it would only need to be sent with only one of the FRAG >> containing packets. Is such an addition worth it? >> > I would guess not. I think from an implementation point of view it's > almost always better to perform integrity checks, authentication, > encryption, or any other packet transforms over each individual > fragment. If necessary, fragmentation might include it's on integrity > check at reassembly but that might only be over few fields in each > fragment not over all the data. This is how we defined processing > order in GUE fragmentation occurs before other options are set so that > the other options (auth, csum, etc.) are applied per fragment; > receiver processes all other options before attempting reassembly. > > Tom
- [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options Joe Touch
- [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-t… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Derek Fawcus
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Derek Fawcus
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Derek Fawcus
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Derek Fawcus
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- [tsvwg] summary of issues for draft-touch-tsvwg-u… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-to… Joe Touch