IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Alternative version of the UDP FRAG option

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 19 March 2019 00:32 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 F273D1286CD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 XuWHZbt5dz5p for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:32:04 -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 C09DA1277E7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: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=lMfILu9OqL8mTR/ERrsZKdeM/1bbiOuv0e96CxHRFLs=; b=XTpxbEzLrf6Bf0Q4QDnLHzNhrT 9NszCtOeTf0nFSoCIisVMsEpLN7IIc9d1fZS2gJrRSRJoP3T7te+YXNxSJ6R5pF5RPCmSXZyuzo90 odzXOPFaPRIt3teqkFfVoX5MpNkw53xxj4EQ9C7QMW9srjX/fHzNg1qK+KbVlwyzKRNYjVRUA5FyZ XhRsW6g991uwP3FE4j+zphftF+waBpJfg462/IAx80N8skxL8Sz+DK91AUiSGhjtblPlm0qXbXJsj JYpM8H2Mzw8sJi3aibKgMsPNyFrpxGc+wthCRN4klBsCxUqsJeyrCm7v0/+7VT31fPKQplE8qo8Kx EDZSNmdQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:63993 helo=[192.168.1.250]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1h62fh-002Yn8-Vb; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:32:02 -0400
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <CACL_3VE1=0OORUuOKg9GjcdVuhBNTkWhymE7PAs5WYO0ZR0DWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37y_AbESyX5PcCSu7NEr-uPVrPXksEeAx5aSNAyqshL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VFJTxM3s-GLOTz9xmkNk1uOQoCmAGApbAf1ZgbH3Opptw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36aWKHFXO=Zx8W-wFqqC5-Oueb3j-b9evm-yKpfguVQuw@mail.gmail.com> <5C8FBBED.7000805@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CALx6S34FKNJ_6Ep659L3t_Kf4bnEKZ5LTjXo-zWz4PrveU_UVA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37MsCmOOsn0bnHoTwJkN7Khfm03z__W4hhy7c29XuvQHw@mail.gmail.com> <5C8FDEED.8010701@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CALx6S36fQcRdgvCG3XS78EecFjdb36D22iBzovXcODH_W+BHbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <5be88c76-d65a-c491-86be-74a52fef7687@strayalpha.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:32:01 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36fQcRdgvCG3XS78EecFjdb36D22iBzovXcODH_W+BHbg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
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/dlCuoCtoBLX4eKTEptJWCxnOx68>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Alternative version of the 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: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:32:06 -0000

I'm trying to catch up with all the proposals and create a summary.

That said:

1) the notion of soft state and its impact on the protocol is already
mentioned in the draft, as are its limitations

2) we definitely need to stick to some design principles. Some are
already proposed in the draft, but the discussion of late has strayed
far afield of those. In particular, the draft already has a list of
rules for when to drop packets based on various option properties.

If we want to reopen that can of worms, so be it - but until we do, we
need to operate within those parameters. That includes rules for when to
drop (largely determined by receiver configuration of a socket, never
determined by what a sender adds or a flag in the fields).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email