IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] A review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-12

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 14 June 2021 18:52 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 4333A3A2E07 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 MtN2tgzGOBCB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (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 B3E953A2E06 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:52:18 -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: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: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=JBBRAqNJrxOk16lAGsxS7ZEB49BkX7CyG+v/8ThdWlA=; b=zHoGq2HXEQuLgfg+cR6YcwYnha msJWesgNcIUj8YEZgud1HLyBwZGMnwMkBL7GzKnMRMvn8CsxG9kSt2COY9QuCesH9dabMJ113edhg zDOELRkFQfpwpGeaq1AUJ/Dbx4BvJQ9MH2toxxa8cVWRZVvrp/gy3nK93r060I93KdEdhk+Ew/3Ba 1ccbLjcpaclzy/XqKo0h6lf6Xit2PduxY+acQOTLvSHdRvvk4P5z75lMU/ry5ZcokWrHB25EfGqZq 3tYRYymlF8NR17l1lJMtsPrcZN3bJNPO0L9r1rkSHgeg4X+kHzHD8LSjtAqP6MBtLHe5gP1EYoU2F qUyBwXyQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50986 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lsrgz-003eql-U0; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:52:18 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34ejysvRS8GVpTQ=CKimC7LAfMY1Jqs1Y47SJAqPzw-Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:52:13 -0700
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D32A5A2A-45EC-4EBE-8861-C12CB29E8297@strayalpha.com>
References: <D9B2E315-5C7A-4BE9-97A9-AF627F6FD6FF@strayalpha.com> <DCF3D0D3-83E0-4F84-8C1F-57DF9EE63C59@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37Hx1zafjjr_fnG1ZY7afGEF081QfV5yhdfPftM57Ro0g@mail.gmail.com> <5A6C1B4E-491E-4F62-82EF-F49292F433AB@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34zXstyhwe8naRozNK3=dtHU-FV6F-L4uv1CK9Yim_-7w@mail.gmail.com> <FC3C3A51-B1D1-4893-8184-3F9CB83F3E66@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34ejysvRS8GVpTQ=CKimC7LAfMY1Jqs1Y47SJAqPzw-Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
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/Y-oY4F8L-GWoMt1qpfT1RwsJ-Ao>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-12
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, 14 Jun 2021 18:52:23 -0000


> On Jun 14, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:04 AM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 14, 2021, at 10:57 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:44 AM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi, Tom,
>>>> 
>>>> OCS has been required since -08 (Sept. 2019). Here’s the relevant text:
>>>> 
>>>>>> The OCS MUST be included when the UDP checksum is nonzero and UDP
>>>>  options are present.
>>> 
>>> Joe,
>>> 
>>> Yes, but in the case when that's not true the problem of corrupted
>>> option type still exists.
>> 
>> Not under the conditions where UDP checksum can be zero, as per RFC 8200. In that case, the entire UDP packet becomes a payload in another frame, so it would already be covered. The reason to allow this is to avoid double-protection effort for tunnels. This is no different.
>> 
>>> Also, this rule requires that the
>>> implementation needs to find the checksum option in a list of TLVS,
>> 
>> If we don’t need to reorder bytes for DMA (which we don’t now), we can require it to be first if present, preceded only by NOPs for alignment (we can remove that too if needed).
> 
> If it's required and it's first then it's no longer an option, it's
> just a two-byte field in a header that precedes the option list. This
> is much better for efficient processing.

It isn’t required. It’s required to be first *if present*. It’s still optional if the UDP checksum is zero.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email