IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 17 April 2017 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 76392129480 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YQyLsDi-_Csc for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D3EE12947E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3HL7xmA017152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
References: <CACL_3VFeJs7KzG9Bchh15bfZ3CmaOPWcfisEreNoGYK5CsEJ+g@mail.gmail.com> <3a4a6b78-8146-de4c-6246-7bd09de44f1c@isi.edu> <CACL_3VFkr3mGe-yTbvHrTZcKVCpEv3FeSOyoShUxCK5+9Tdqqg@mail.gmail.com> <c79fe3d0-8567-ea7d-72fc-bd33732df60e@isi.edu> <CACL_3VHmoCSo23OWqQFq7upw749CqMK7iazXrBKZARzwbzY5mw@mail.gmail.com> <f97f08d4-0070-437a-e22a-8782497c76eb@isi.edu> <4e36af95-84c3-bc7e-b18a-614f8bfab662@isi.edu> <58F48403.8080302@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <a0f656e8-e847-db54-6046-2078364d428b@isi.edu> <CALx6S36HYHdbGoJHNb+mVY6reu9RLikLxDJqrPgwO9tF1EfSgQ@mail.gmail.com> <8b1829ba-4e8d-5ee1-e24c-f42962f47dde@isi.edu> <CALx6S36=7KbTtv9QNUBTg6gPYQQighsPD_+mWNc=wUQTX70VBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <8378ae17-c023-25a2-76e7-07b858916849@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:07:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36=7KbTtv9QNUBTg6gPYQQighsPD_+mWNc=wUQTX70VBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: v3HL7xmA017152
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/qTMxgyNXVxo6w-a8-bs_4zwlq2s>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Regarding DTLS and UDP options
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 17 Apr 2017 21:08:46 -0000


On 4/17/2017 1:47 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> ...
>>
>>> One thing that might be missing from the draft is middle box handling.
>> This is already discussed extensively in the document, including in
>> response to previous TSVWG discussion. That's why we now default to
>> using the OCS and a length validation. Do you have specific concerns?
...

>>
>>> and so middleboxes must pass packets with UDP options,
>>> should not attempt to parse the UDP options, and must not modify
>>> options.
>> We already addressed that in the doc.
> I'm sorry, which section is this info in?
The doc talks about legacy issues throughout.

Sec 5.3 talks about the option checksum and Sec 9 talks about
interactions with legacy devices in general.

Section 7 explicitly indicates that these are for transport endpoint use
only.

I don't think we should be writing rules to indicate who should NOT be
changing them, if we already have rules indicating the only parties that
can. (granted, the requirement in 7 needs to be revised in 2119-speak).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email