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

Tom Herbert <> Sat, 04 January 2020 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3E61200A1 for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:15:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hHRUSiHHnCuq for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265C212009E for <>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id dc19so44555148edb.10 for <>; Sat, 04 Jan 2020 15:15:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eSdiW0MkSkAgFFnHhEYC2mR8cGbf66S188WNNZpGfTU=; b=Xx3BdbPWYMvPGYmPNrTkK+U4e6Lc25YhK7smiq+14fKnXGkIUcp+OXrybBA2yFiaBd 9GQv5qTD0Nne9AxPYf3PqnpTa+fXP5wJ6sFChfwWG5SWOFx7Aav5SU96MFiqKRAqPR76 H2sOEDy+su2QvG7MjAO7QkrClZ51hxwvFCGQHBCoW81YcQ/rOg1K/mrKn0pCz+mx+S+Y GcwX+Jgpd8aIJknlhecRAtfM+jaAQ8/OM0OwEqEILqweJ+Xr1Dd2A0bVFVFQOeTAS3y0 wYKTrgihrwcpRMO8OsugJQH64ifd1HjpfS8Txjm1WxWPY649vVA/trU0803aQtBcmGZB NrIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eSdiW0MkSkAgFFnHhEYC2mR8cGbf66S188WNNZpGfTU=; b=q4u+0aLRZPrW3QtdKUncska0P+vxH3YAzsPnI8S0CelTbgHMq61+ytBxgn0YR/rOwz QbrMlCqPpk/wKE5DBcs0r3RXHM8T+qwcwCNZgj9sxYVv00cuNMTJy5lPQePS7IoXwjW5 TFc6SMQ7taor/DaHyZK9qejiDRsKamoGOaC6FDR7WdTLkjtAVmfrEjVzB/yNK3o4xl9P G/cqdCeEFpX4u4vhlRpmFioSm565faHlMV3M1PnCTcpdSXTQLhPFvkJXGnBa0K8WN9CC QOvJUzyqsiXqkVRyTeq3j8kmO6mtlG/VxbRUSe8HF9jb5JUlJ9Typ9gneLQCDaB7uUi6 /Rqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXr2qziGKcj1O1T8lBfyltDAX8SQeyOZdkRryKjwZ5ow0aWya06 mCcUUfRxfATZlXeUa3m/v6rfsPLbydWT/oQzNNzR0g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwrEVffE6VVRLfSwgP1uiFzlet5+TZxp3Y6b8AzaaD9D/3iXcHdoBDSzZOSy/5CmEgzmp6m/MVlKitjxVCmPBQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9e29:: with SMTP id z38mr99723090ede.62.1578179738594; Sat, 04 Jan 2020 15:15:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tom Herbert <>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 15:15:27 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "C. M. Heard" <>
Cc: Joe Touch <>, TSVWG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b605a1059b589a6a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Rregarding soft-state and UDP options
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 23:15:42 -0000

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020, 2:52 PM C. M. Heard <> 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.


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.


> Thanks
> Mike Heard