IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:07 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 1094B130E1B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:07:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 gvESyp8fAptS for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:07:07 -0800 (PST)
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 7F07F130DD4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:07:05 -0800 (PST)
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=S1racYocnP3UoovFkNB9MhO2ZTwHDp0z9W0jzT/EmNg=; b=kjKQdEhoLRd6+dr0G4wWDNG3k zzsMRjxncni/d5XyhYF2HRg4GR6P9WFeWmxPWhXcVKZI+B4MEZ1JEOMkkwUsKGkohXWa4033N+sQf BX1j8+gKYZOO2kkL8AC5fuO7XT1hBDZOHObpx6dOXtne8dAhthDjBaDI2KQlP+KRuishXTclJphTx V/wvZjGk0Kucq5M3QeEek/exLes07rqS4vxGMC7rdOrREK28nFlTn0JmzyUVOhqusMkswQsh2egAv 2im230yNQC0CQdG4IyBMf5fNz4Pf8/PVlR61ycfurcj8jFCn9KEyeUStdZATzWaTwiWaLuQh7G2v7 PYzpMhswA==;
Received: from [172.58.23.162] (port=49868 helo=[IPv6:2607:fb90:5b1d:702d:31cd:f417:610c:eda7]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1gJiL7-003mUx-D7; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 12:07:04 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16B92)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35md8vixTMfWuruXK4ANNTO9EGGCa2LqgOa3uJyoyp6UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:07:00 -0800
Cc: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>, G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <975F768C-35A5-44C5-BDF2-A1FE37F96108@strayalpha.com>
References: <5BDFE320.9030802@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20181105063300.GA14271@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20181105122227.GA12854@bugle.employees.org> <CALx6S35-iVdQv7w0raC7+OM6t4HQ0c=x+Ciycz_fxD3a3t5sYA@mail.gmail.com> <D545954C-8C2C-4138-A72B-6197C849B120@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37Af8b8u0xjgtPo__9BWBiLGHQAH7QOE15sHRuxm1XoBQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A42C525-6EDA-45D7-BC6A-3D13537E5DB6@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35md8vixTMfWuruXK4ANNTO9EGGCa2LqgOa3uJyoyp6UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
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/fEIoii__8uwV0su6-HrzEYM-1QE>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update
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, 05 Nov 2018 17:07:14 -0000

I am not discounting the need for testing and for multiple implementations. However, it’s lazy to sit on the sidelines and demand that of others. 

Joe

> On Nov 5, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> I already addressed this issue. It would be rejected by a receiver that requires it, but the default is legacy behavior in which all options are silently ignored.
>> 
> You are missing the point. Edge conditions need to be tested against
> real protocol implementation. If the FreeBSD implementation is only
> tested in an environment where there is no loss or no bad packets,
> then little is learned. It is easy to make a protocol work, it is
> difficult to make it work well.
> 
> 
> 
>>>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>>>> I keep repeating this, but AGAIN:
>>>> 
>>>>       OCS is NOT intended as a check against bit errors
>>>> 
>>>> That is the role of ACS.
>>> 
>>> ACS has the exact same problem. If the option type is corrupted then
>>> the ACS can be completely lost and corrupted data is accepted. These
>>> are edge conditions that should be tested in an implementation.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:24 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:22 AM, Derek Fawcus
>>>>> <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:33:00AM +0000, tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At IETF-103 we are presenting the CCO
>>>>>>> (draft-fairhurst-udp-options-cco, see maprg and tsvwg second meeting).
>>>>>>> We think use of the CCO is required on the internet and an checksum
>>>>>>> using the CCO pseudo header should replace the OCS.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> xx      4         Checksum Compensation Option (CCO)    - An alternative approach to OCS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Oh - I like that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Have you actually observed any middlebox corruption or mis-checking along the lines mentioned?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That should be explicitly tested by sourcing bad packets. I believe
>>>>> that a single bit flip in the option type of a OCS will not be
>>>>> detected as an error.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tom
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If so, then it would seem this new option would be mandatory to include in
>>>>>> all UDP packets containing UDP options.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DF
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email