IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Re: UDP options [was IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)]

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 28 September 2024 03:29 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 682A4C1516F3; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 dLoLsSnZtuh2; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 552C2C1519AB; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type: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=MboqCCAOZRd5RkwH42EOACZVJPkje/udqZIYJ7aM2Eo=; b=pQDaC2zk5UHUS4LeQP30cAtBNh 8MsR9CZphgaq8dCIZEueRbBjHb+RL+XjQFu6Luhv8hvgXb/RR51n2IwT21DIsl4obOfsv6yJsRDYw XFM1q1t3hZs/uOOxoqBru6wGlFMIfDfO4vbF14TX/sQ4B34asCTc5TD1n1tW8TxLp+fRCNRt4ML51 NqYOMcZuvie4L3CbXCOBLUOHmc3KDaLjxU6mxWzoEnHQ5onURA9/DXH7J4CB78KPGQxClxalpmZRh VLKe8o5iPxdOreVZhVZ3GbRUBeMGWThVY5ExxcxUPOD/LtgBU6d5dvX92YMK/ZVEJ3O17jj2A+dis uQoNWtTQ==;
Received: from [172.58.116.185] (port=31599 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1suO9V-00EaEM-1w; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 23:29:49 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1FE2666A-6A9A-4310-842E-6E859F1EE73B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3818.100.11.1.3\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <b57cb059-9fb8-4fac-8015-1d98dc99efa0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:29:36 -0700
Message-Id: <3683A899-FA2D-4156-9DBE-A76D83472E65@strayalpha.com>
References: <BN0P110MB14206BEECA8F0D481B06E89CA368A@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <9a15800e-c23a-4696-9d30-5c1dc9e4363b@redbarn.org> <DB9PR07MB7771C8EDF5A23CA4897EF42AD66A2@DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S34x3QnWtcKTR18gpoW6Po04GdE+ytGKneh92CdvnPkK-g@mail.gmail.com> <BN0P110MB14208BCE5095F728C99C3FF9A36AA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <0f5bd363-22d5-4dfc-956d-2f69401c15b3@gmail.com> <BN0P110MB142062BB61C46A826EFCA3A3A36AA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1e4c3c53-d2c5-4e19-af9d-d41cf369282b@gmail.com> <BN0P110MB1420F6B4D278E3CFA9E406E8A36BA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <491AF3F1-8B91-4A70-8202-54DC33F656AB@strayalpha.com> <b57cb059-9fb8-4fac-8015-1d98dc99efa0@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3818.100.11.1.3)
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
Message-ID-Hash: WK32HBPGZ5WIZAWRPZS4WIZRH7DWPZ4O
X-Message-ID-Hash: WK32HBPGZ5WIZAWRPZS4WIZRH7DWPZ4O
X-MailFrom: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Internet Area <Int-area@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: UDP options [was IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)]
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/EONGc6b0-P1G663EbQNt-NMNRCg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

> On Sep 27, 2024, at 8:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> We COULD have a new option with a longer length, but that’s not in our baseline draft.
> 
> Wouldn't that be tricky, because the options follow the whole payload as I understand it? So a JumboUDPgram has to be received in full, however big it is, before the option saying that it's a jumbo can be received and interpreted.

I was assuming use of the atomic FRAG approach, in which the UDP length is 8 (not zero) and the options then appear immediately after the UDP header.

> Where the udp-options draft says:
> 
>>> The technique has been proposed for deprecation [Jo19].
> 
> I think you'd better change it to something like:
> 
> The technique is known to be in active use in special situations, so cannot reasonably be deprecated. However, users of this technique cannot simultaneously use UDP options.

Yes - we’ve already got that queued up as part of Gorry’s shepherd review.

Joe

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status