Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-09.txt

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 03 July 2023 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 27C3DC14F73E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com
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 Wxvz1HKXjLRZ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C660C14CE31 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD05819596B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:35:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=gi5sFO EupuzPvCLg6yRDEwii0CMZb4IeM4RqWN7IKnk=; b=Tzg5gx9vYPaPzvryldoqlg Z56mFz1eXlqDorByxkdNVajU42zgXeUfxvvKyAiVbaYo536858V4vm9ws2eHvSUh PDCUOlPyHLX3TJhsAS7+YEsPK03Uu2kcfHmYwWQu79/Ms7m+u/Yf0ocKXK7KvrQO f1fSjgufmR//dBCwdkXrM=
Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A632219596A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:35:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (unknown [209.85.167.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2191D195965 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 20:35:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4fb960b7c9dso5915099e87.0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 17:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLYo5olKkHe8ZyniLmW/fmOyf+3zTaP1828EU9b5bUWeu4gd5ORp uOBmbl4lT509SBNvEr3WdnggbIQdAcgrWChKpaw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlFK8EqOI0VJtEidpK/coYisDy/r7Equ5la7wdkbi0Ssp/6WEAzj6D+VEq73B7q3fUccX2Dc5+UVpNkjYIv8hrw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:718:b0:4f9:557e:35ae with SMTP id b24-20020a056512071800b004f9557e35aemr4858269lfs.19.1688344547919; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 17:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <168805849623.15224.18038199673090941440@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <168805849623.15224.18038199673090941440@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2023 17:35:33 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VGH9BZYyJPc5yFzfsbvnaF__Zi6uw55zfoADOV7NvPF8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VGH9BZYyJPc5yFzfsbvnaF__Zi6uw55zfoADOV7NvPF8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8E9BCB4A-1939-11EE-89B6-C65BE52EC81B-06080547!pb-smtp1.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/mlV4LcTm3qHOZo0B0CWFdEjfB3E>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-09.txt
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, 03 Jul 2023 00:36:03 -0000

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 1:50 PM PDT, in the thread entitled "Remaining
issues for draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22," Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> UDP Options itself doesn't generate the response, it passes the REQ
> upwards to the protocol that does and that sends the RES option.

However, Section 3 of  draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-09 says:

   When DPLPMTUD is within the UDP transport service, the UDP Options
   processing is responsible for sending probe packets to determine a
   PLPMTU, as described in this document.

It might be better to say "the DPLPMTUD State Machine" rather than "the
UDP Options processing" to make it clear that it is the shim above UDP
Options Transport in the figure that does this, and not UDP Options
itself. This would help to emphasize the point that UDP Options on its
own does not generate responses to any option.

The document does not describe in detail what happens when an Upper
Layer Protocol (or application) implements DLPMTUD using UDP options.
For me. it's easy enough to infer that the DPLPMTUD State Machine has to
reside within the application, and that the application must initiate
the actions to generate probe packets and responses. However, a sentence
making that point explicit would not hurt.

Thanks and regards,

Mike Heard

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:08 AM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working
> Group (TSVWG) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title           : Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options
>    Authors         : Godred Fairhurst
>                      Tom Jones
>    Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-09.txt
>    Pages           : 17
>    Date            : 2023-06-29
>
> Abstract:
>    This document specifies how a UDP Options sender implements Datagram
>    Packetization Layer Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery
>    (DPLPMTUD) as a robust method for Path Maximum Transmission Unit
>    discovery.  This method uses the UDP Options packetization layer.  It
>    allows an application to discover the largest size of datagram that
>    can be sent across the network path.  It also provides a way to allow
>    the application to periodically verify the current maximum packet
>    size supported by a path and to update this when required.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud/
>
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-09
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-09
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>