Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 18:00 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 4573B120452 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 FWw1PQFn9F1T for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:00:44 -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 8BFB81200F3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:00:44 -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=2RLd7JxZVAVHAU/I0rEAl6F2ALBp1jl/b+7sOHoXeGM=; b=R1cOjL4fae/ocO1A1PTOrYP52 i3nx8VhFOCBMvHJgCRTdZdpO4Yu6AOh/YutLbJPuFMcWMxg3jCSoTP5Lk9iEspZjir1f2tnwtl0Wq gqVaL6lcglb20kL3Lu6GeAaq5we9ySqnAaVsVWSJAxB/GNE7Iq1jzVCVwM0rLH6DcICvxGXnO2JOI 9+sHdCRrvPNJZ7+iwefhrj7kput6e+KbNz6ZROmNud3QySQC4zSSrNqiGjW+6rQXRpuURAGarmU2J 2asIz1dS09CXmrnSxrpdKLKJh8G2CPHzrn/p+Vn+72eNMb2B7I2Myiv/95Uw16i3OR89WnMuJwh/v BO4o36hLA==;
Received: from [::1] (port=49442 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1hlzqY-0040wX-OF; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:00:43 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_08c2f5ad9b67cadbc17b33f758fe0d5e"
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:00:38 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34BmOefkEMKHLasmUoiWx6P+5yUG_v=Cdzdtw_H1cD7KQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <156262970360.865.13042807682366763561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPDqMeoMqsB8=tH5TBaq5Tw-sLW3HNc8tpfUU3htV=sWo7pJcA@mail.gmail.com> <D7E52D2B-3912-4897-80C6-0150CDE10218@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMep9MYqjFvvJSVbqYwo-xJ1pUocYszNukveaZODhf9+75A@mail.gmail.com> <e73919f08202937bf45418cbf8bcc38c@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMeoh3n5fL1k6Fw9D8rCpy4a9eWyUZvgStyzYfFuJbuWudw@mail.gmail.com> <3f6f54e0b828e2628af964d6ee7f33e1@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37rt7OJtH5a2ZH23R21ATETuwTeFS-mZQECtgxPQ3nSZA@mail.gmail.com> <ccc386aa429bfe301998f39eb7fccfbf@strayalpha.com> <140f11c854e0ad96c51639f830cbb688@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35MC_fj+fL6Ax9a-9=-QX0-mHLmMQ7cUs2Rir+AvYE=zA@mail.gmail.com> <5b35e91dd510119672a0836f868ade24@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36AVbKfvb-6dj07rcGjsVsCz0daFM9qZOBSSstZOM-Ukg@mail.gmail.com> <8A584FFF-6C86-4154-8D9D-CF407CA77145@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMeq9GjEQKukH1pZOTdE50e_rc3U6gpdxT-5qrS5phD0RGw@mail.gmail.com> <646D45AD-D79B-4BD2-A084-7DA97CE2C415@strayalpha.com> <7EC37B50-45D5-4CF1-B113-205E55BF244E@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34s7L7xo+26bt5Cdaqi4Es5Aci42GHk1WNKzugr5st-Gw@mail.gmail.com> <B525BF50-EFCC-44A5-A604-6CDDA914A1CB@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMep3R6z9PRKkHyOvrh6sV9n5Sc0B++-zVz0FYJCwE6swrQ@mail.gmail.com> <E42A2AE2-F499-465E-BDE6-5EFC0AB20042@strayalpha.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306138E9@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <f9f1701c2196c5db520d025294202353@strayalpha.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306153C4@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CALx6S37U5Q9qkxDFfR6w9MpN4qvRagThb+p0GqnAS118cKDuZw@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493630615838@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CALx6S36SL2X5StJ59zyKKwNafS1WXh0HMDqbYs+OaDdMLoNTmg@mail.gmail.com> <33045f76897978c01208266c831318c2@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34BmOefkEMKHLasmUoiWx6P+5yUG_v=Cdzdtw_H1cD7KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88dbe43611a5d7bc487ef76cfab3b26b@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.7
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/EMrxG5_-PBgQsJFVjLfrbZYCB8U>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:00:46 -0000

On 2019-07-12 10:44, Tom Herbert wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:19 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: 
> 
>> On 2019-07-12 09:40, Tom Herbert wrote:et the requirements (which
>> 
>> ... UDP options proposal
>> doesn't generally meet the requirements of RFC6936 for using UDPv6
>> zero checksum.
>> 
>> FRAG+LITE does, though - because it provides its own post-reassembly checksum.
> Unless the checksum covers the IP addresses, it doesn't meet the
> requirements

Given NATs rewriting those addresses, what's the point? 

> (not to mention as hard as I squint, I cannot fathom that
> UDP options is tunneling protocol). In any case, the requirments that
> UDPv6 checksum must be non-zero are baked in-- it's a done deal in the
> Internet. For instance, there's deployed middleboxes that will drop
> packets with UDP v6 zero checksum

"baked in" or not, it a bug according to the requirements as of RFC6936
- and it needs to be addressed. 

Joe