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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

>
> You keep citing network protocols, not transport.
>
Because, just like UDP, IPv6 is a stateless, connectionless, datagram
protocol that works over unicast, multicast, anycast, and broadcast.
They have all the same pertinent properties. If you know of a
transport protocol with options having these same properties then we
can look at that (note, that protocol is not TCP!).

> Transport protocols don’t have this behavior - and it’s IMPOSSIBLE to implement for legacy UDP receivers.
>
It's not impossible, I've already suggested the necessary text and
requirements to prevent a receiver from incorrectly processing an
unknown options that cannot be ignored. I claim that this protocol
works for all use cases of UDP in order to satisfy the requirement the
requirement. If you dispute this claim, then please provide the exact
scenario where you think it fails. Here again are the requirements to
ensure:

"
Options that cannot be ignored by a receiver due to side effects or
other requirements MAY be sent. An option that cannot be ignored is
indicated by the high order of the option type being set to 1 (if the
high order bit of the option type is 0 then the option can be safely
ignored).

If an option that cannot be ignored is received by a node that does
not recognize the option then the packet MUST be dropped. The
following requirements ensure this:

  - Options that cannot be ignored MUST NOT be sent in packets that do
not use FRAG+LITE format. This prevents a legacy receiver from
incorrectly ignoring an unknown option.
  - If an option is received with the high order bit of the bit of the
option type set to 1 and the receiver does not recognize the option,
then the packet MUST be dropped. This covers the case where a receiver
that processes UDP options however doesn't support a particular
received option that cannot be ignored.
"