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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 4, 2020, at 2:52 PM, C. M. Heard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joe Touch wrote:
> A deliberate design decision is to let the receiver decide what to do when authentication fails. 
> 
> If they know about authentication, then they can enforce it. But they can always have ignored it so there’s no benefit to “forcing” it to be acted upon.
> 
> And it’s not “regardless of having an example”. That’s the reason why we decided not to design features into this mechanism - the lack of an example.
> 
> A design goal from the start was that receivers would decide whether they wanted to enforce an option; it isn’t in the hands of the transmitter to make that decision, largely because UDP is stateless. If you want enforcement, create state - and let that state be the way that these sorts of things are enforced.
> 
> Without that state, you can’t know what’s being ignored or implemented incorrectly anyway.
> 
> For the record, I do not agree with any of these design decisions. I have objected before, but perhaps my objections were not sufficiently explicit.
> 
> As far as I know, there has been no consensus call on these matters, If I end up "in the rough" after such a consensus call, so be it, but I want such a call to take place.

We’ve asked for feedback multiple times. There will be calls as we move forward as well.

But we’ve also asked for *examples*, not merely pleas. Absent those, it’s hard to understand why these are not driving the design towards arbitrary complexity for the sake of hypotheticals.

Joe