Re: [tsvwg] A counterproposal to Section 5.5 of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-12

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 9:43 PM Joseph Touch wrote:

> So at that point, we really have only a few decisions:
>
> - do we want/need RDMA support?
>         if not, we ditch the frag length in non-terminal frags
>
> - do we want to ditch the required post-reassembly checksum?
>         if so, we ditch that field in the terminal frag
>
> THEN we compare the answers to decide how to handle the MF issue:
>         - if we still end up with different length options, length
> indicates MF
>         - if not, we might be better off burning two codepoints on
> FRAG/TERMFRAG than a byte
>         (a single byte throws off our fields as odd-length AND needs to be
> checked for values not 0 or 1)



I'm OK with this as a path forward. I would like to add that I have no
objection to using different KIND codepoints in place of a MF bit or byte.

I'll address the two points above separately.

Mike


>