IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] RDMA Support by UDP FRAG Option

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 21 June 2021 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 BB3DE3A1594 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 34PvsgTEUN_d for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5AE03A1593 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id l1so30551329ejb.6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zqtuSruDds5agVTPCW2Qpgt72J56ImP83NP1YJlmhXg=; b=wNFOyfCize13D6+GlQEYnBDoNT7HOnEInj7bMRwnUWx4bxLroa9CT6U3nSJ18ch13F R89f2sWmpLNMai/SWYfEJYy/1RzfhktM4IaUFhpoBBX+6Bz6nUdikmbIDlbZmx/t7lpG KDUlUTPL7aWisOMFWDxI5Ue4Q5jJ7CKtD0nLIKDHLcilEHjn525uBK6eNoGIZiedwGt8 QLcJ9gJ3riscl9P67QC+qm3o00ecftE/A2Xl8M3GpzDEUkYpH1g1tC2HhPfo4173Kf7q eINXwGue2TNB3rmDLXmCqsoOYtiJN36qp6zpdQH20xaVlloyf8Bt2p1cnleaZ5xyXBLQ 37BA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zqtuSruDds5agVTPCW2Qpgt72J56ImP83NP1YJlmhXg=; b=bmWu0MQAVKC73ORBrc5jZqmedrUCFCSsiEcuviSryniKtiz3jA9nb28Xz2+irPsE4o om4YeTYmZtHmJNjX3jUkJx94a35MUINcQCnkVgxWMts76Mr7HTNtfS+gFoY57mmUrEEr 1j3T7lD1tZCOk9vYJHJm5S4/DmF24CJcg4AAewIGR0aAYDt95Nr57ROFCBZVewyTMhEG N/KUQrvgHKtn/UV5JyyrLk/CcfEpt2bkYZXHD5hCulMwSVJE4k90wfRK5+7zcFNBZVZg JTKOcz163JOvuogJT4OoM3PIgZeVGfTBBvPIUfCEasor6PjcerLWuKhec9oFRHeKVbBX hyFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532UxW4J7TFi+miaVoAphJ9jUK253RtkPIr5+gf8UTkWtsBfAfi2 XzJriKfBeYZTTaKx8x2ArRoa73FPk3SYvcxR+B6yjQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOY3TO0s8n8QEnW5yqfoy4/prz7P7GufxLOriMtInGLucef8ikNLXBfVb1IoiR78uRKFAlOWnN96U4Dn3kcvg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2dd3:: with SMTP id h19mr17100486eji.272.1624301585297; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S34uAMD4u+7=gqgWA9PL2rTUF1-zurYAZuQdOawvBnHF7w@mail.gmail.com> <9B4DF8FF-14A0-4CBE-8E35-0750C4B4E2F8@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B4DF8FF-14A0-4CBE-8E35-0750C4B4E2F8@strayalpha.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:52:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34JwGS-7LKTty8DgDbqjRKuH3k7-zZBEM=rVGpivRZg6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/cPQfw-SK1nkGpipHJ1fL5aLf_Pw>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] RDMA Support by 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: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:53:14 -0000

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2021, at 9:22 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> But your claim that “I’ve never seen an error” is like saying “but my [broken] watch is fine because I only look at it twice a day - at 8am each time”.
>
>
> I have NEVER said that, in fact have seen and FIXED many bugs in this area. You are completely misconstruing my words.
>
>
> I was assuming this discussion did not need compilation-level precision.
>
> I should have said “never seen *this* error” (of erroneously using the IP length to infer the UDP data length rather than using the UDP length field).
>
That would still be wrong with respect to what I actually said. I said
the algorithm I described was provably correct and gave the proof.

> The point remains. Not seeing a bug does not mean the bug does not exist or that the code implements the spec.
>
Neither does not seeing a bug mean that there is a bug and the code
does not implement spec correctly. If you want to claim implementation
has a bug, then you'll need to show us the specific reproducible use
case and configuration for the specific implementation that produces
the bug.

Tom

> Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email