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

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

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.

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.

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.

Thanks

Mike Heard