IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 04 January 2020 21:31 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 A959F12004A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 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, 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 iBo0FuTyKcsT for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:31:32 -0800 (PST)
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 B181712002F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:31:32 -0800 (PST)
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=Bor+mUDHZ1aQa8zhz0+yEZh6auU6kpTxWUsAq5wxR98=; b=QUSY0G30ErDbmAD/iSL0sZqQo 689+MnJv8Dw2BVpdrBUO5AflHUGnHrxPhIlxEyo3r7lIWOKV+aDcH2GAtiSNOWUZqaIi795sukVkR KokXrPbRyadWN1ekFdhtORkzDLVrwrY7CpJ1Tj9wAEiu4DT8WhuCoGqPsWeqqtBp3SNEQztHgY3kN ENdU7paDes5ajeWjPjC8aidGP47JtBD32Fg7bkEIpVxc+5qXWw3nJhEMoQFQ+NI3V69ThQ3/9Ml9R DQhi/q25tbmSVX8PscpGPvU3oxIedZupUIoWPcDfd8oyeBqvjXN4GxJ7AO/CpGLNbbfYHiHEiTiO0 Fdmdr6olw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:57640 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 1inr16-002owo-Ed; Sat, 04 Jan 2020 16:31:32 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0725B126-F84E-476E-A47A-50AB8055E849"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <251CF72E-05E3-4644-A31E-8B21134B5060@strayalpha.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 13:31:27 -0800
Cc: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <1EFD0008-FE4E-4F89-9940-E32BBB0E8973@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S36227JnMkaZtPUvJoY5Pw-rQgy2R6tqt1PF_L=bgCjxCA@mail.gmail.com> <85C8C994-3FEA-4DF4-8C46-75CB205D09EA@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34EfhcthoG4Qtr0JtfsdqQPr-2=havTvq_7nh9K8XDhJA@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B9BD-3148-43C9-BCB8-E6F5DFCE69C3@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VHvHQZgN40VDKg6+ZidmjLq5SisaqZ9ARZZNEq10q7gBw@mail.gmail.com> <251CF72E-05E3-4644-A31E-8B21134B5060@strayalpha.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
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/Vw00yze3d_YhPrmwd87CqboM7mQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Rregarding soft-state and UDP options
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: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 21:31:33 -0000


> On Jan 4, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 4, 2020, at 10:44 AM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com <mailto:heard@pobox.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:36 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>> No example has been given of a transport protocol need for “drop if the option isn’t supported” that doesn’t modify the frag payload.
>> 
>> What about ACS? It does not modify the payload, but it affects how the payload is handled: if the ACS check fails, the payload is not delivered to the user. Those semantics can be violated if the ACE option is ignored.
> 
> ACS is mandatory so it can’t be ignored if UDP options are implemented. If it is used with FRA+LITE, the payload would be ignored by legacy receivers and would have to be accepted by option-aware receivers.

s/accepted/validated/

Again missing in this discussion is the premise that UDP is unreliable. That means if you don’t establish some sort of state with the endpoint, you don’t KNOW what happens anyway. If you do, all these signals are irrelevant because that state can coordinate the behavior.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email