IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] OCS option in draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 12 March 2019 01:41 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 5FC9A12AF84 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 1pI1ELF06Kph for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:41:50 -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 00A5512AF7D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:41:49 -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=5mM7NhD1TnI2g4+25bhBPzmdyXDb9TbbOo1xftuB6/c=; b=jb+9ohs91iPBSmLt3uMlgVRVm ieamfeIHjjIVDodKAF6DuRWrZ95JR7/gTtwWnsE8Z+fOUErIjjocaxIykSB2mD6EEO3NyGOj0/An9 4tD1r1bBDNDru/DX3P/HUtRESRBtXOW7YAWlufpPU1F6Iqf8NOv99CtTQH0/aOQ5rIcg4tYE94OkB PkkUhCycwF5obdCz64zskswurYDscKrFxV8R2Wc4aYNRrjVRtMiFJw4LIHZbjGExNl4/BpQ02J2cz d5Jsf+MS0ju++qhapnVNdFW7cTNXPHISM4M80NUhWE+guiBhfOvEApTzmDWrvcnCyT6r96e0vB/bL bzXD5M9QQ==;
Received: from [65.222.224.130] (port=25287 helo=[172.20.15.93]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1h3WQM-002UGw-Az; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:41:48 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16D57)
In-Reply-To: <20190311221839.GA92478@bugle.employees.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:41:45 -0700
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <134F56B0-D4D2-4159-8268-2A9CDB9DD0CC@strayalpha.com>
References: <CACL_3VFg-EWCYHZ4+kYV30vjNzPs90ysAu5SCdLNb+9OPxE+3g@mail.gmail.com> <B1D19ABC-428B-42D8-AE97-BF3B967B1140@strayalpha.com> <20190311221839.GA92478@bugle.employees.org>
To: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>
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/ZL3qeu5pnIU2EbHSgpiavI-r5ac>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] OCS option in draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07
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, 12 Mar 2019 01:41:52 -0000


> On Mar 11, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> The only use I could see for leaving surplus for non option use
> would be in the case of there being an option indicating
> 'the rest of the surplus is X', for some X.
> 
> So really what we lose is the ability to have an option of more
> than 255 bytes

We can easily declare one final option that is “remainder”.

Note that comes with some caveats:
- it wouldn’t have a length; like NOP, EOL, and OCS, it would just be a flag.
- it would not be defined as being included in the OCS (if it were, it would be a conventional option IMO), which means any use of that area would need to consider a checksum area that can be used like CCO (NOTE - I’m not suggesting including that area by default; the CCO trick is a fix for a pothole, but we should not be designing every mechanism to REQUIRE compensation for potholes that ought to be fixed)

And yes, this (IMO) correctly inverts Tom Herbert’s proposal; it leaves the checksums as first-class and “other” trailer uses as second.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email