Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-fast-06.txt

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

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 7:21 AM Kaippallimalil John wrote:

> >>  Some of the UDP MED option data is dynamic by nature due to the
> variability during content capture, sending rate changes, variable
> encoding, packetizing.
> >>  Implementing dynamic data using FAST/tickets would mean that tickets
> would have to be generated per packet in many cases.
> >

> It's not a problem. The same data carried in UDP can be carried in a
> Hop-by-Hop Option.
>
> [John]  The IP HBH options with FAST ticket can apply to several IP flows
> that carry a FAST ticket and its "stateful".
> My view is that it’s a great proposal for requesting/granting a "service/
> policy" in the network.
> However, the procedures and data in media handling draft is for QoS
> handling optimizations, applying within a single flow, and is basically
> "stateless".
>

I think that two things are being conflated:

   - The method used to carry the signalling information ("the carrier" as
   Tom characterizes it in his initial message of this thread)
   - The nature of the signalling information ("the content") and how it is
   acquired

I see no reason why an IPv6 HbH Option cannot in principle work as the
carrier for the MED option as defined
in draft-kaippallimalil-tsvwg-media-hdr-wireless, at least in IPv6
networks, though it may well be that the FAST Architecture and Operation
(Sections 3 and 4 of draft-herbert-fast). The important thing for THIS
conversation is to compare and contrast IPv6 HbH Options vs UDP Options as
the carrier.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:19 PM Tom Herbert wrote:

> It may be possible to put network options in UDP Options,
> however if changes are required [...] then I suggest those
> need to be proposed and defined quickly-- once UDP Options are
> published and deployed it's really not going to be possible to
> retroactively change how the surplus space is used!


Exactly so.

Mike Heard