IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 04 January 2020 23:19 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 940541200A4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:19:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 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_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 mSvO_yw_-0Z6 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:19:39 -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 F26261200A1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:19:38 -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: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: 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=IRr5KW1HTtsQ9a/9RXr6Xsw5Ly4gF/RY/dbJRAU7lls=; b=gHzTBI5PlAWWxwsr5lxSbM67z Gamd/3dBL/xgbEDBEIXxdmPxZXnF75vsU/biVES2WnSGNb4NoxwlMoRIGweNcyp2ranRluQdwtBNj AUEKoS3ZgzyUwnfpM1ezJF3OBoT89Uxni4cYinak+xLH7cRymZOnfbAMcemrD+vGISkC5FtbK6BGw TRFpFt/zLVGMh5brXuXfpgim97ia1zoRi9pvpgx7aau8IOg3GheyVjPkHtMzxtZCPYpqiqfZEuafN DNfoWu03+YCkjtDkU8gC9KsYSbFgo7y3lrbM3cCnHrxP8F8X8l6XWTdTku+4VCjz2SFwF8YgEQxOp pW4GCKMFA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:60102 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 1inshh-0006W7-Qx; Sat, 04 Jan 2020 18:19:38 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S348quRyqME-zM2Td=h7RORL2R93kFCCMX+GuY9DRw1aVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 15:19:33 -0800
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D749E1AC-437F-48BD-85BC-1E0F6C381EFF@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S36227JnMkaZtPUvJoY5Pw-rQgy2R6tqt1PF_L=bgCjxCA@mail.gmail.com> <85C8C994-3FEA-4DF4-8C46-75CB205D09EA@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34EfhcthoG4Qtr0JtfsdqQPr-2=havTvq_7nh9K8XDhJA@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B9BD-3148-43C9-BCB8-E6F5DFCE69C3@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VHvHQZgN40VDKg6+ZidmjLq5SisaqZ9ARZZNEq10q7gBw@mail.gmail.com> <251CF72E-05E3-4644-A31E-8B21134B5060@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37S+6=6=Uv-kFKinS0EXOQ33ie-UsH0dv4HW8skeE=jvw@mail.gmail.com> <C10CCF7C-712A-4667-B9E3-8C9AEDABD7A5@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VF1_tEN91a3Ze34mjm1K7=6f-9qaBN8Gm1c1vwCPCMgHw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S348quRyqME-zM2Td=h7RORL2R93kFCCMX+GuY9DRw1aVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.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/Lsj4voBbAwbmr4kw8Lfd-KlSUQU>
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: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 23:19:39 -0000

I don’t know how best to say this repeatedly, but we are NOT INTRODUCING STATE INTO UDP.

We have repeatedly indicated that endpoints using certiain options may need to coordinate - OUTSIDE OF UDP. That’s always been true of some options - e.g., TCP-AO and TCP-MD5. The same would be true for AE - a receiver could decide to allow or ignore checks or could require them. A transmitter that needs to know otherwise needs to confirm.

That’s what we’re talking about when we refer to the soft-state mechanism - the assumption being that because UDP can’t establish or enforce this state, it would at best be soft.

This has been discussed many times at multiple IETFs and hasn’t changed.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email