Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options: REQ/RES

[Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Med,

The 255 length for the extended format was in -08 already. Did you mean something else?

As to REQ/RES, although they’re used for dplpmtud they’re not intended as exclusive to that mechanism; they’re more generically useful and that’s why they’re defined - in detail - in the UDP options draft already (in -08 in section 6, which was incorrectly a level-1 heading and is now fixed).

Joe

> On Jul 30, 2020, at 4:35 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Joe,
>  
> Given that the plan for -09 is to not mandate the support of REQ/RES and that only kind values are defined in the UDP option draft without specifying the behavior for handling these options, I reiterate a comment I made in the past: remove these options from -09 and leave them to draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud.
>  
> Also, please update the list of kind values in Section 5 to indicate that 255 is for extended UDP option format.  
>  
> Thank you.
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.