IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32

Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Mon, 22 April 2024 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
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 9E6C9C14F6FD; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 02:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJMRjLpKFNBY; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 02:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (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 96E48C14F701; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 02:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 43M9HnZh028295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:17:49 +0200
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 43M9HVpe025915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:17:31 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 43M9HVIH025914; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:17:31 +0200
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:17:31 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20240422091731.GA25219@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
References: <CAEh=tcd2FzQxgbSivuX2cEg2FpsnkoqdFw5gMhrx3pkT_JV88Q@mail.gmail.com> <2BEB5CC3-BB54-4119-A20F-8497ED4B5AE2@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAEh=tccKg7YHYkwKZ978uaXmTkBu3zyA+WBAW=eBMKAh2PSVDw@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VG6k9Rg4316dZUd5ksQ2pLZHxzDc2dZqVD0Z9yPQBo3Yw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEh=tcc7xvi5rNtYXChr84_zp3Sq8bJE4684V4qhL580RZeE9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VFqeFgehYbt1e5hfAF7NZwDLhA31AkR3Ju21o0iAoHHbQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VFqeFgehYbt1e5hfAF7NZwDLhA31AkR3Ju21o0iAoHHbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Author: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/egISL4plzWF2e8d-kyTgf0QpFDY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 22 Apr 2024 09:18:25 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 01:15:18PM -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 4:20 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 8:26 PM C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:09 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> >> zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:48 PM Gorry (erg) <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >> The backwards compatibility with UDP was considered important in the
> >>>> development of this Spec.
> >>>
> >>> This point is absent, AFAIK in Section 16 of the draft now.
> >>
> >> Adding such a discussion is a reasonable request; IMO the best place
> >> would be Section 6 (Design Principles).
> >
> > Please add it.
> 
> After further review, it seems to me that the following text now in Section
> 6 adequately addresses this issue:
> 
>    6. The UDP option mechanism and UDP options themselves should
>       default to the same behavior experienced by a legacy receiver.
> 
>       By default, even when option checksums (OCS, APC),
>       authentication, or encryption fail, every received packet is
                           ^^^^^^^^^^

A small nit: I would expect the receiver to attempt decryption, not
             encryption.

> [...]

Br,
Erik

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status