IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Comments on recent UDP options work

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 25 November 2018 17:42 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 D6EAF129AB8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:42:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com 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 11VsBiygzh5g for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:42:02 -0800 (PST)
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 553BF12896A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B8510E0E7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:42:01 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=XbhCCo5bqxENgzdi9Sn26Hk8YMQ=; b=s9/R/r dVst38t1IKF/10E1nfgL9jqFqg+yF6mKTa8RObpnic0mAJxnxx8rEHO3zfjtwf/3 3kJoLbR8y4GXIfJQDYYtsenycVqexIcny2ZR6/l6my3tfWFhq942ZeJmcR9co27s 5tYRkO8zHkRTiOppr4o5XXBlKRB5Ltp7iT/NY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=C93VBRQQ6wa1uLojm/guXKlZx4YV/Re/ EKs3LLSNOyiFu2jv4954fB2GUkej3KjvxLsByLUSm27+hJta5EETucSNb+u97wcq N0LLanLi8uswY9zaNWtcHO4o7fQ8XE4rxbiA9sAYygJOrfIh6PxHXWhS8vmoM+tt bXexkDMhcPo=
Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB48210E0E6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:42:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-it1-f170.google.com (unknown [209.85.166.170]) (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 E278B10E0E2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:41:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-it1-f170.google.com with SMTP id m123-v6so647385ita.4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:41:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIkBwJw13fqmT8C/v4+63BWreviB1UK21uPpwZT/oD5GR5GmF8X IhjsNCsT9KMXfjKGHxDgywOKZJQJjP0pdnt7OX4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WVv3+MVUZG8IoWUmyuqz53bMiBPdS6yW8VI5neaSEzNMDVpWN7GxHE4UhKGqJco02G24GygavMHrKmwOAgEPA=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:ee83:: with SMTP id b125mr21293630iti.151.1543167719283; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:41:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACL_3VFG+B1AZfC09XTTq0Ht8tM5RoZt8zy1c5aK2NLpQQwKGA@mail.gmail.com> <DDBEA9CB-86A1-496C-BC73-F4C62D05ED05@strayalpha.com> <5BFACDAD.7050109@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <2CFB9765-6B83-4857-B4E6-355BCD04FBFC@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37XL-r-5nzqY_Efdr9LBMf6TcOL0SYdFvQhfc0OGKCasg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37XL-r-5nzqY_Efdr9LBMf6TcOL0SYdFvQhfc0OGKCasg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:41:47 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VFFwUALtr=CR11Ut+BWFx7oiOHwpjAhiaCVpCC7OaJ8Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VFFwUALtr=CR11Ut+BWFx7oiOHwpjAhiaCVpCC7OaJ8Cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 69435DB4-F0D9-11E8-BA3A-063AD72159A7-06080547!pb-smtp1.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/LLQzBBnlQuXSAAR2cAkAkrHgjks>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on recent UDP options work
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 17:42:04 -0000

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 9:26 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
> But, the protocol does need to be correct. In the case of LITE, the
> draft allows that receivers may interpret the same packet from a
> sender in two very different ways.

Do you mean LITE, or FRAG? That is definitely true of FRAG
without LITE (and IMHO a good reason not to use FRAG
without LITE).

> One receiver may see a UDP packet
> with non-zero payload, but the other way is for an application to
> receive a zero length UDP message.

Hello?

> It's implicit in the the draft that receiving a
> well formed zero length UDP message is innocuous to applications, but
> I don't believe this has been proven. There should be more discussion
> and supporting evidence for this.

I agree with this point.

Mike Heard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email