IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 11 March 2019 03:30 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 30505130E6B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 0hl86D9UiU1W for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
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 50351130DCB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=Czw/Ljccuw6cfRrEP6F+TpshblQ9hvl0x9hleoA60W4=; b=yJtqDa6qBO/KDrOrnxWLE9OTf cUpu3zyAxnLxd6n0WT9umurVIP2ZayfcoxP7q7LDwUREsNlKimXC4rCHpm60eRTmHNVkb+euYyZNV bioGrG0dvVJMQx/TMDClSP/BO/MywPSKbOYDSUqHXZIOTYJglLYlAmDXi7KWryxX3q9SyIo3bInEv p2iIv4LwiARaDxdXLMc+BbY4EoF3YAkWhcBabJiE1GNesavFBD4xkE5UILLMgQQwlhjc/HL4ZyH4c BpAWEKQ1AeIqWgtIEdq+TTe33xULmcUvIdX8nm9pK4pwZ4Zb4+S9F+8EKj9pjDvu+it41U9mjRrYY xfqGpgYAw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:62989 helo=[192.168.1.250]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1h3Bdb-0028rZ-6X; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 23:30:03 -0400
To: "qiangli (D)" <qiangli3@huawei.com>, "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED45BE93CB@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com> <0EA3C86F-B061-451D-A521-292728788B16@strayalpha.com> <5C82257F.5030505@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED45BE97A1@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com> <7d691ac5-3655-59ac-60cc-221b6a39717e@strayalpha.com> <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED45BF7F98@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <49a7ea78-eb88-2a18-1c1f-eb866bec3c90@strayalpha.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:30:02 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED45BF7F98@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------96107A35F0732AD055ABAAC3"
Content-Language: en-US
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/PV_HS2wVtEs7rOmY6HFEvlpWbK0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 03:30:06 -0000

On 3/10/2019 6:53 PM, qiangli (D) wrote:
>  may I understand your comments as your support for this approach ---
> “pre-compute the sending cycles along the way, then carry them with
> multiple SC options." ? 

I don't quite understand what you're trying to accomplish.

As per my other note, I don't think transport headers should be used as
a way to communicate with network devices EXCEPT at the endpoints.

So even if the values in the options do not change (is that your intent
above?), I still would not suggest this as a useful UDP option.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email