IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 04:10 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 2F60612013B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:10:59 -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_HELO_NONE=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 pCGKQ8pf-cGl for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:10:58 -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 023F9120043 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type: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=70ZZUTAbwKo9fTykXABFegi9AEZ4aXhfSC5JkGBQoIA=; b=gRBxA8htSwG0fxHOwEORtbNKG bWJ4U8YDH+YoxTF7u2INCB5ecV7biKzVFavFSj1QUOYnHnC6s/7FhCS0bkIdrioUEL5HUOdhmyrKI M4AqEK0its26qMIYifxXlwqjKXor+jo3go1MNv0hyyB8bDwFbk9nlo5z25YoRYigVd+B6LkliLsVO nhG+KzM5ujcW8nELYiv2ZRJToXRHqR5wSDitfi5kYVzP9ZLyhftk11tgN1dYAKeFp0CWmDCKK57z6 +wHI9if8lUAuScgbbc+miOMZm8eSvANPigxYwKoXr0IVBEhgOy9cw0dkqdA6GqumlhxkGwWvsYWgT B2OcJY9lw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:64905 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1hoKEO-001s0b-JL; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:10:57 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1EFE36A4-9B6F-48D3-B84F-6094E1B89BF9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <2CA71F98-5FC8-44F5-9CDB-0532D6B82B78@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:10:51 -0700
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <37BE65EA-A267-4F50-890B-F8B2BE9A46F4@strayalpha.com>
References: <30c17e9c174f6b0da3ecc6b503a8cb17@strayalpha.com> <2f71a292f924a9b8de4227c4bbc2f809@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VGrF5UnbVsSzZZoy1i57WKiQKBX2T3a16UyEVHY=Kr3XA@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363061EF7A@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CACL_3VE7+3WD3Uzubf8X9uQX9ZYPnZVhXjheUOuL9EfjT1JkGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35V-d3Rn_wjrhbHUHgS=_+dVjR4hbMJ0-JBsG-1BuFuZg@mail.gmail.com> <B5CCEF58-38CE-4973-9CFD-002B404E4EF3@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VEnJoV9N9i59fJXG1Nyt=mMWT7SuB8B=C-Y9a9QLtqP7Q@mail.gmail.com> <BB3FD9A5-8D30-4600-A7A7-DA3030BD34A3@strayalpha.com> <20190718100109.GA86292@clarinet.employees.org> <718EBD34-5B4A-4458-B9B4-0A94C33E019E@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VGL2irCkZeEcP+9HLBHqtqaMPZM66youUsatzosUu=Aew@mail.gmail.com> <A07EA390-1A3A-4AE9-AFD7-2F22CD4B0E31@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34oOza3Z4Ymjsp+HLXnSTOKwh+SAQO8mt=a-1AbTTB0GQ@mail.gmail.com> <177233bb33272ce3b64298a005254724@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36ZBa4Bioj=0KYn7wcFi08VeAg8sHUHLRNGURsrUN673w@mail.gmail.com> <5D30B36D.80409@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CALx6S37EauLMyeksHJ3iPNjKwLTv5qti_Hf0a2QTdzZoDrarrw@mail.gmail.com> <F1092EE4-16DC-4292-903E-F54A447E6A8D@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S340gCTQiA85iVXwnbA8nU8=nvWnGq7q3jzuG7SuVHv=ag@mail.gmail.com> <DE387BB9-BA9D-447E-9767-FD0428B7F1D7@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VHGub1ZkDEKCcT-RU6WiO-Us9XzxHno+hRgDq_h5qZudw@mail.gmail.com> <2CA71F98-5FC8-44F5-9CDB-0532D6B82B78@strayalpha.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
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/UsGySouUw4oQDCQxs11ftRKukGU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] 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: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 04:10:59 -0000

PS - add to that sec 8’s processing rules  for the same reasons.

Joe

> On Jul 18, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> I’m confused as to why the design rules in sec 7 aren’t being discussed as a coherent whole.
> 
> It’s not feasible to selectively pick and edit them. They only make sense as a group - the same is true with many of the mods being discussed.
> 
> In this case, we’re talking about whether to make options behave differently in two cases:
> 
> - legacy receivers, for which there is no such thing as “drop if you don’t understand this option” for any option
> 
> - option-aware receivers
> 
> This is why I think of all UDP options as “supplementing” UDP, not changing it.
> 
> We’re not starting with a blank page here.
> 
> Does that help explain the rationale behind my viewpoint?
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:30 PM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com <mailto:heard@pobox.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Joe, I'm sorry, but I am having a really, really, hard time understanding
>> why you are pushing back so hard on this.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:03 PM Joe Touch wrote:
>> So basically “drop if not supported” has no meaning ALREADY for legacy 
>> receivers.
>> 
>> A bit encoding "drop if not supported" is not there for the benefit of legacy receivers.
>> 
>> It's there to make it possible to add future "unsafe to ignore" options without messing
>> up option-aware receivers that don't understand the new option.
>>  
>> Anything further - deeper, or involving state - can still be performed by the 
>> receiver, at the receiver’s decision already anyway.
>> 
>> How is the receiver supposed to make that determination?
>> 
>> And how hard is a totally stateless ignore/discard bit?
>> 
>> Mike Heard
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email