IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Alternative version of the UDP FRAG option

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 19 March 2019 02:00 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 8E535130EFA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 iPu-77h-03kQ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:00:34 -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 519B8130EAF for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:00:34 -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=ALMJzRw0ZcCn3lXVtuwI4cNJ7OAMNY72GErinpukg+Q=; b=HGELBhHdp7lWmXD03bV/sU3xL B+OSah5Uno2lGMP+iX0VRVHCpbFCt60u1wvPQHfzMTu3voOYXJYQzHOW9/M9+h/XfuiczWGfcSbJZ cVSy60bLIhOhK8Lsux1L68btG3wiRDduTZ8nZkGYzd+QYa4g9F1DurbBQ8a11qMpikJJeyy6KMxVn Qyf51Hhp83Qa8AiprbIPOER2rklEOyZil9p2natW737mtVrcb/d8ftpXea49Lfh9hiZYCKl+LfK5U jOX0YcCMmwJy3Zhr7ozrZEY7NXjHLytGJGjgDBY2Q/4taUK2RtyoWzInQSEi6rDmAA2xGDwFFeY8R Aha6rvYug==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:50376 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 1h643M-001UmI-AZ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:00:32 -0400
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <CACL_3VE1=0OORUuOKg9GjcdVuhBNTkWhymE7PAs5WYO0ZR0DWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37y_AbESyX5PcCSu7NEr-uPVrPXksEeAx5aSNAyqshL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VFJTxM3s-GLOTz9xmkNk1uOQoCmAGApbAf1ZgbH3Opptw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36aWKHFXO=Zx8W-wFqqC5-Oueb3j-b9evm-yKpfguVQuw@mail.gmail.com> <5C8FBBED.7000805@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CALx6S34FKNJ_6Ep659L3t_Kf4bnEKZ5LTjXo-zWz4PrveU_UVA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37MsCmOOsn0bnHoTwJkN7Khfm03z__W4hhy7c29XuvQHw@mail.gmail.com> <5C8FDEED.8010701@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CALx6S36fQcRdgvCG3XS78EecFjdb36D22iBzovXcODH_W+BHbg@mail.gmail.com> <5be88c76-d65a-c491-86be-74a52fef7687@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35h+ANRpqrEyC97JocXUrDw_+b85a8bP7QgjSchMPXF-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <62f9f885-5dd6-78d4-2d8a-8fab83871529@strayalpha.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:00:31 -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: <CALx6S35h+ANRpqrEyC97JocXUrDw_+b85a8bP7QgjSchMPXF-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2098A73112F7C855A8A5B564"
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/S51-uX9PdrEcFqMeFYDTDTDdtco>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Alternative version of the UDP FRAG option
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:00:36 -0000

On 3/18/2019 6:33 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 5:32 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com
> <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm trying to catch up with all the proposals and create a summary.
>
>     That said:
>
>     1) the notion of soft state and its impact on the protocol is already
>     mentioned in the draft, as are its limitations
>
>
> Joe,
>
> Is a normative description of UDP option negotiation forthcoming?

We decided on soft state a while ago instead. That's already in the
current descciption.

>
>     2) we definitely need to stick to some design principles. Some are
>     already proposed in the draft, but the discussion of late has strayed
>     far afield of those. In particular, the draft already has a list of
>     rules for when to drop packets based on various option properties.
>
>
> But other existing standard protocols that have options already use a
> certain set design principles (like skip option bit in HBH and dest
> options). It's not clear to me at least why those aren't being followed.

Because we're starting with "all options can be silently ignored" to
support consistency with legacy receivers (at least until soft state is
established) . That's NOT where other protocols start. There are several
other places where we diverge (trailer, optional core checksum, etc.).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email