IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] RDMA Support by UDP FRAG Option

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 21 June 2021 20:24 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 16D2A3A17E0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 eq9JGTT4Nx0E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (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 2059C3A17DE for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:24:31 -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-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To: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=WFzv38wQGW/ECbNb309+lz1HINO/EYSHQOfcirXU+Co=; b=EBzw7fbd8/I8wTqjd5Rx8rp0g6 bi1WaiuOCm3TdMeZMd8v/xcNgxgI1tVFtQmEWIBabmgKYqnZD7J81kPPxeVsor4IJQ6iLxQ+7OFEo rPBzYouwAjIpw9vdHTtkEejQCB8JBiN5McUB9f5ealuH/A9Iwj6RG6YcwzW3p0CPhVpgSClPNCtOT DJf1quoHpP28wX5aFB+ej1WabnmJx+T7LOHI//QEj7NqgnS7Ep6xRPn4436ajB4IvEav1ygCjEsQn o84ZOhH2siz/dNvwvAmmm8hlPpooTqm4++YdgZDyA3uKSpu67QY/a1DGn47zMSL/1M0I+HdL5EwPA DLmQwtsA==;
Received: from [38.64.80.138] (port=54623 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lvQT4-000CNU-9P; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:24:30 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34JwGS-7LKTty8DgDbqjRKuH3k7-zZBEM=rVGpivRZg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:24:24 -0700
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <CE248455-D05F-45C6-A6C5-35DB99DC4053@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S34JwGS-7LKTty8DgDbqjRKuH3k7-zZBEM=rVGpivRZg6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18F72)
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/JsFZrsRBH2lLFMGeRLPpFgA2CAQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] RDMA Support by UDP FRAG Option
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: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:24:37 -0000

I’m not going to engage in a discussion that requires quotation of a “court record”,

Any code that uses IIP length to determine the UDP data area, eg gir the UDP checksum, it would be incorrect. The correct UDP data length Is indicated in the UDP header, per RFC 768. 

Joe

> On Jun 21, 2021, at 11:53 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 21, 2021, at 9:22 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But your claim that “I’ve never seen an error” is like saying “but my [broken] watch is fine because I only look at it twice a day - at 8am each time”.
>> 
>> 
>> I have NEVER said that, in fact have seen and FIXED many bugs in this area. You are completely misconstruing my words.
>> 
>> 
>> I was assuming this discussion did not need compilation-level precision.
>> 
>> I should have said “never seen *this* error” (of erroneously using the IP length to infer the UDP data length rather than using the UDP length field).
>> 
> That would still be wrong with respect to what I actually said. I said
> the algorithm I described was provably correct and gave the proof.
> 
>> The point remains. Not seeing a bug does not mean the bug does not exist or that the code implements the spec.
>> 
> Neither does not seeing a bug mean that there is a bug and the code
> does not implement spec correctly. If you want to claim implementation
> has a bug, then you'll need to show us the specific reproducible use
> case and configuration for the specific implementation that produces
> the bug.
> 
> Tom
> 
>> Joe
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email