Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104)
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 18 July 2019 14:29 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 B7E8312038A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WwX2eiOB9PKE for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AF11203AF for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5D231B0007A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:29:17 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5D30823D.6010903@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:29:17 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302FA71098@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5D306564.1000101@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302FA773C1@OPEXCNORMAE.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5D3069CF.7000109@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <F519BAF5-7435-4CF9-BBD5-103A48E32F88@strayalpha.com> <5DAFC1AA-EBC2-4180-A934-1607AD6B2B11@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <5DAFC1AA-EBC2-4180-A934-1607AD6B2B11@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/OVsF5zCtJIrqCIzexks7io2YDHI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104)
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: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:29:33 -0000
On 18/07/2019, 15:27, Joe Touch wrote: > Oh - catching up, using LEN as a flag seems a lot simpler (I thought the proposal was to reuse one of the KIND values). > > I personally like the use of LEN=255 for this purpose rather than LEN=0; it seems more meaningful (the highest value means “go longer”)… > > Joe That would seem OK for me, and better than using "kind" :-) Gorry >> On Jul 18, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Joe Touch<touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: >> >> We can - there are a few ways to do this: >> - pick one KIND and let it say that the next 3 bytes indicate the next KIND and 2-byte length >> - use a subset of the range of KINDs, reserved in advance, for this purpose >> >> Note that code points are already assigned to mimic TCP: >> 0 is already in use >> 254 is already reserved for experiments >> 255 is already reserved, likely to extend the KIND space itself >> >> It might be reasonable to use 255 for this purpose because it inherently extends the KIND space anyway. >> >> Joe >> >>> On Jul 18, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Gorry Fairhurst<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Ah so, I guess the document editors canm work out what is best to do. >>> >>> My wish was to systematically allow larger options to be possible. >>> >>> Gorry >>> >>> On 18/07/2019, 13:41, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>>> Re-, >>>> >>>> 0/1 are illegal values. These values MUST NOT be used. A receiver will discard them systematically. >>>> >>>> With the proposed approach: 254/255 are legal values... but with a special meaning. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Med >>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>> De : Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk] >>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 18 juillet 2019 14:26 >>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN >>>>> Objet : Re: Options larger than 255 (was RE: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp- >>>>> options issues from IETF 104) >>>>> >>>>> I don't mind the choice of codepoint, my understaning was zero was an >>>>> invalid length, and an easy thing to test in code. Choosing 254 or 255 >>>>> seems less obvious to me, but if there are good reasons, just say... >>>>> >>>>> Gorry >>>>> >>>>> On 18/07/2019, 12:48, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>>>>> Re-, >>>>>> >>>>>> Associating a meaning with Len=0 as proposed by Joe may not be >>>>> intuitive. An alternate approach would be: >>>>>> * 'Len' only covers the option data field (that is, 'kind' and 'Len' >>>>> fields are not covered. The overall option length can be easily inferred). >>>>>> * Associate a meaning with one of the two values we grabbed: >>>>>> - 254 or 255: a 16-bit extended length field follows >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Med >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>>>> De : tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Gorry >>>>> Fairhurst >>>>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 18 juillet 2019 12:22 >>>>>>> À : gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk >>>>>>> Cc : tsvwg >>>>>>> Objet : Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gorry >>>>>>> P.S. I like the idea to explicitly allow options longer than 255 bytes? >>>>>>> - This seems useful for fragmentation and would be an easy addition, >>>>>>> someone suggested using 0 option length to indicate a 16b length field, >>>>>>> which could make total sense. As in: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/B4oeZkpagdl4gkAMDCFW7F1A7_8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gorry
- [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draft-ie… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Raffaele Zullo
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] Options larger than 255 (was RE: draf… Gorry Fairhurst