IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Rregarding soft-state and UDP options

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 03 January 2020 04:21 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 1008512004E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 20:21:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 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] 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 W-iJUBPbLtOZ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 20:21:50 -0800 (PST)
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 E577612003E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 20:21:50 -0800 (PST)
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=zinq1VZe8tpDxRNyxypIGPvRSPloAGLjA+kZoor+ZxY=; b=I3hT6WnxywelHQniL/YT34lx7 TalcSZC0wZGyx72pAylspkqCLpJ+eresFha9bFlo0xmo1uNecNxoSPZvF7bj2x9+KmxHx8BwaDeeA OhZVinxcEQalls9A2t7DXHFdYJGCAM0/L4I1cqamVdYKE1CGuzKyfzOys3H457i5b6didl0N95jqC nr27GGQUwJqUx1+VeAt9jqVy9MzTiQW1+sjpFCh9zr7dxU1UDnIKREgnyMwn+kqzBsqWV/ePKYQpQ BPd99ye5XTrWGW9hNYrNTXPt/0Hfhiu8V0LrsKYrnjTC6aOE/DN6zOi2Ajl+CeTz+1ukcVMwoD0tD 9PZl/mEfg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:56565 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1inET3-003MJz-NH; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 23:21:50 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8CF1C4B4-AD4B-47AF-838E-EEAB8A603556"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VFi7nvvbFu7gAF=KABobetrceQML4Qu8OP69nxm3AtSCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 20:21:44 -0800
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <A64547AC-B540-45D4-8769-2B25F3A99DEC@strayalpha.com>
References: <CACL_3VF_Mi6JFK=so_P57+Woe5PYOzC4o2Okj6BPVzB91scRQg@mail.gmail.com> <40B548AC-6168-46B5-81F8-CB6A64C83D5C@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VEmX6C-Mqz8OQuS2NtJQPNNFgyTgyb9uN6TrHuZYwLMLA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34o4AooKW2w5rPPzRu8yQU=Db_f4jboEB6=AywJBw-mgg@mail.gmail.com> <0AA45B1F-3081-4F4F-92C2-AFB47B222854@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35mtfGLOESBGqQpd5N0whHO_jEtZQCrfhJ=GBHSH6nxdg@mail.gmail.com> <6d088714156c9ccba194dc71ff667273@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37FNw-5DBJZPORaGKT0HEa2nGD6NodObZHSeC1-WkwvTA@mail.gmail.com> <3CB53C92-9CE3-4EAE-BBF4-39334550B192@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34aVhQXrnJqyo-zYoSMAsYdNqLZBy+5HRq7gX7S-mFebw@mail.gmail.com> <50B40711-64A2-48AA-8EE6-CC1B995339C0@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VFi7nvvbFu7gAF=KABobetrceQML4Qu8OP69nxm3AtSCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
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/F-ibXohLb0l04rI_IM1IJWNOSuY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Rregarding soft-state and UDP options
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 Jan 2020 04:21:52 -0000


> On Jan 2, 2020, at 7:00 PM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 6:23 PM Joe Touch wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > IPv6 options
> > solve this problem by the "drop if unrecognized" bit so no negotiation
> > is ever necessary.
> 
> That is ONE way to solve things, but its hardly “solved" when nearly nobody uses it.
> 
> But it’s also not relevant here because IPv6 baked that rule in from the start. We can’t - there’s NOTHING we can do to make a legacy receiver drop packets with unknown options, regardless of the flags per se. All we can do is design them so the options and data are invisible together, which LITE+FRAG already supports.
> 
> Joe, I think that you are missing an important point here, namely that the "drop if unrecognized" flag (or Option Kind encoding rule) is proposed for the benefit of ***option aware*** receivers, not for the benefit of legacy receivers.

FRAG+LITE already provides the behavior you want. The flag option fails to provide correct behavior for unidirectional or failed soft-state receivers - both of which are non-starters. A key requirement is that legacy receivers can silently ignore all options.

…
> I do agree in principle that use of FRAG+LITE (in a form that includes OCS over the entire surplus area) plus post-reassembly options addresses (a) and (b) of my message (though I still reserve the right to comment when I see the details).

AOK. And point taken that the soft state section needs clarification.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email