IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-31.txt

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Wed, 06 March 2024 14:15 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 766BEC14F5FA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:15:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.805 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, 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 (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 0pU71Ynuhf2f for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:15:01 -0800 (PST)
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 0F0BDC14F5E6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5C11D76C8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:14:57 -0500 (EST) (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=3coQCWJDvOHZTDToZzjTONiRySRx+zDD aMtIlWJhZs0=; b=q0YrXRGpVetMrpvix4/tQScKeEYze7mItg5mle30l4DO8/ee AGOpwv3N7N3kDUfsiugSKrYH/k+mC1aZuWSDZN3qeIog4i0zfbFBxjLPj05Y5x7K JcvIV752ydbKTdkF4/V7dqiHH3ZwSqrxl7BqJiwThwuFhUbtPqZWFS94uMw=
Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709261D76C6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:14:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com (unknown [209.85.208.177]) (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 D04721D76C5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:14:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-lj1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d109e82bd0so84630211fa.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2024 06:14:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUIhVuoUd2z+2dGnnsur4js1UUgmmGwpXWSK1pl9lJBY+Ggvl1+ePl8YncBsY/U0cLVtcLdsembu+O/o0BHdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyW8TNw3X6sHKWIjC3PqWFAG1v+NHLdnBEtDYP20UpG0wswSXNt 8d+rEmNFYj9CJxtBm7ECcChuCJzYNdSmoV4k0Yo4AM4n5Xfts16LifHErllVcLygOPb+4qq+vz0 a3ONZuHwCalov7/AJdrLwB4MDJXE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFxxEozAIUPHymMg9LwIZMyFdkqIdqxWwui8Pr1bkLSwJWEAxBP0kGEnLofq4M67BjZ5mumREo3Fzpjt3CplfY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b1d1:0:b0:2d2:74ed:37b0 with SMTP id e17-20020a2eb1d1000000b002d274ed37b0mr3263777lja.11.1709734495739; Wed, 06 Mar 2024 06:14:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S37S61eKrPTefdBTKfw=BoV31_C4nwadP+QxrctfduF0iw@mail.gmail.com> <E82B3F27-CD79-4ED0-9FE6-27CAAB8E41AE@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E82B3F27-CD79-4ED0-9FE6-27CAAB8E41AE@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 06:14:44 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VH9VLVh99ZCWz2oN4yvQf_bGjyK6WCqc7nP5TT3n6t1AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VH9VLVh99ZCWz2oN4yvQf_bGjyK6WCqc7nP5TT3n6t1AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000476ec30612fe959e"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E8F76E3A-DBC3-11EE-8153-25B3960A682E-06080547!pb-smtp2.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/EYs50CSfoo7bk5iudBUgMxTFfuA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-31.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: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:15:06 -0000

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 1:10 AM Gorry (erg) wrote:

> My suggestion is that we do not need to add a new UDP requirement, but to
> say something like:
>
> Section 3.4 of RFC 8085 advises developers to use additional payload
> protection when “  where data integrity is important”.
>
> The APC option can be used to provide this by applications  enabling this
> at the sender and also requiring the presence of a valid APC crc at the
> receiver.
>
> Gorry (as a WG member, not a chair)
>

+1

Mike Heard

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status