Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:25 AM Joe Touch wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 2019, at 3:01 AM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> > Mike was also further suggesting to carve the option id space such that
> > there is a signalling bit.  Doing so would then allow for fate sharing
> > across options if at least 1 'discard if not understood' option was
> > present.
>
> Oh, no - that’s a huge can of worms because there’s another bit to set:
> “all or none” or “ignore individually”.

I think Derek mis-stated what I had in mind., which was was something
similar to what's in RFC 8200 to specify what happens if an options-aware
implementation encounters an option that it does not recognize:

      0 - skip over this option and continue processing the packet

      1 - discard the packet.

This processing instruction would apply to an individual option. The options
would not be coupled together.

This provides a means to instruct an implementation to discard an option if
the payload would be misunderstood if the option was simply ignores.

You've objected to this before, I expect you still do, so all I am doing
is clarifying what was being proposed.

> Also, note that IPv6 included bits to encode whether ICMPs were sent (and
> whether the source is multicast).  We haven’t addressed that can of worms
> yet either...

Nor will we, presumably, since UDP has no analog to ICMP messages.

Mike