Re: [tsvwg] Rregarding soft-state and UDP options

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020, 2:52 PM C. M. Heard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> A deliberate design decision is to let the receiver decide what to do
>> when authentication fails.
>>
>> If they know about authentication, then they can enforce it. But they can
>> always have ignored it so there’s no benefit to “forcing” it to be acted
>> upon.
>>
>> And it’s not “regardless of having an example”. That’s the reason why we
>> decided not to design features into this mechanism - the lack of an example.
>>
>> A design goal from the start was that receivers would decide whether they
>> wanted to enforce an option; it isn’t in the hands of the transmitter to
>> make that decision, largely because UDP is stateless. If you want
>> enforcement, create state - and let that state be the way that these sorts
>> of things are enforced.
>>
>> Without that state, you can’t know what’s being ignored or implemented
>> incorrectly anyway.
>>
>
> For the record, I do not agree with any of these design decisions. I have
> objected before, but perhaps my objections were not sufficiently explicit.
>

Mike,

I too disagree with these design decisions, particularly the part about
introducing state into UDP and not providing any meaningful guidance on how
negotiation of that state is supposed to work.


> As far as I know, there has been no consensus call on these matters, If I
> end up "in the rough" after such a consensus call, so be it, but I want
> such a call to take place.
>

Agreed, maybe the chairs can start some consensus calls.


> My preference would be to see an updated daft prior to such a call. That
> would allow those of us who have concerns to comment on just the issues
> that remain.
>

Agreed also.

Tom


> Thanks
>
> Mike Heard
>
>
>
>