IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe considered to be adopted by tsvwg?

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Fri, 03 September 2021 03:02 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 4BC1B3A1F09 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 20:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ie5uc5M2MgZr for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 20:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83733A1F08 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 20:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53809F135F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 23:02:37 -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=aQxmq9ogv5UfQXRez7F5DUvWB1U8LzbN cMrXCxzGGiM=; b=xVFJm1Da2z8SOmF6yn8juX5wYFuFFkPn1nIW73A5TyPm7ACu pttGC0J8YjZDH6W4ATAEWOi6UCEPTIczrY2NBW/za+rfOdESKm+IBtY1/Jn3m4YS jlTPtLacJ1Vc6vnHvPPK8+YtzlUZBiu3qnlm/DeDRWKNtUIukVU3A5yzoCc=
Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C713F135E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 23:02:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-pf1-f177.google.com (unknown [209.85.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C291FF135B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 23:02:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-pf1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 18so3209413pfh.9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 20:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533TO1sIIU4YY56GUoFqrYJXUFmyvFsy2ZoCm0W1iY9TidiYGi1J SpDfJyoI8R7/C+8guLz3SXFXGfpZtN//z2aXAWA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzLKdokWKRc1104WbUTTVv12rPkYdyDM7JdavbXb0neYYDPT3SvW4BptPaAOdDhjGE2ej1OTsprf+WTinlN/y4=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6983:: with SMTP id e125mr1495584pgc.389.1630638155827; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 20:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7e3e6985-9f5e-de1b-da1e-15bb468fdbdc@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7e3e6985-9f5e-de1b-da1e-15bb468fdbdc@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 20:02:24 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VFJkvHAevbQR2wDvaBk-9cE-8GWp92fhGG1+7x16WsqtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VFJkvHAevbQR2wDvaBk-9cE-8GWp92fhGG1+7x16WsqtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Tom Jones <tom.jones@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000090c1205cb0e8862"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 64720530-0C63-11EC-A2A6-D601C7D8090B-06080547!pb-smtp1.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/EfIFUYEDCKsq4DXATrM-14tU5hg>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe considered to be adopted by tsvwg?
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, 03 Sep 2021 03:02:50 -0000

I certainly support adoption. There is one substantive issue that I have
noticed:

In Section 3.2.1 (page 4) the draft says:

   Implementations MAY track multiple requests and respond acknowledging
   them with a single packet.


That contradicts the following provision in draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13:

   >> Except for NOP, each option SHOULD NOT occur more than once in a
   single UDP datagram. If an option other than NOP occurs more than
   once, a receiver MUST interpret only the first instance of that
   option and MUST ignore all others.


This inconsistency must be resolved before this draft (or
draft-udp-options) can progress.

Thanks,

Mike Heard

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:24 AM Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
wrote:

> We submitted revision -05 of draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud
> a couple of weeks ago. This, like the last rev, was mainly to tidy NiTs.
> The protocol spec has not changed.
>
> The authors are now asking if this can be adopted to progress with UDP
> Options through to RFC publication.  We've asked for this to be added to
> the Agenda for the next Interim, and thoughts from the WG on-list or at
> that meeting will be most welcome!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Tom & Gorry
>
> (as individual document authors).
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email