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

[Derek Fawcus <[e-mail]>]

I need to draw some pictures to work things out, and also consider the
FRAG implications, but I'm sort of liking the general direction
of Mike's suggestions in this sub thread.

I also now need to ponder upon OCS staying an option, or being a fixed
field, since as I understand it, the current scheme suggested would
allow for a naïve scan over the surplus using the standard 16 bit
checksum (suitably initialised).

The implications for LITE data seem poor, but I guess if/when middleboxes
get fixed (or in controlled environments) LITE with no checksum coverage
could be more easily handled using the fixed position checksum (i.e. no
OCS option), if we used 0000 to represent no validation of the surplus,
and it only carried the LITE data - i.e. no other options.

DF