IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 04 January 2020 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 F068312002F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:24:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 X6Kj_LMKGcWI for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA800120013 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:24:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xNFYAKXg2XxwQMbCEjJdvMS2ViiMSvCFPBuCmnDSCWI=; b=gU4l26mp2/Rkw0kdk4wQv1kjc YNep7zGc2PG71uFQInn6082gLZNzXJvtkWLh2KgUBNCj5CzVv1M20LJCqAWiaK/GiYRXQH8herBVI hNskzL5hD+wEEUzPKK76SDKT2wr1/7MFhLamwe/1CH6HMDnTcF6WLGyXLj2lNbpo0+Z+W/zNIPE8f q6xyazijJq7MpgWR0hHdlXJnTH7Cn1x6vXb1KdOdnl8AJv2wtGb5i/sXzM0JVbd97kjabDHWWRCvR X1Q5HW8QpFVxdY1BKG8IiIjHHtKJPllpgVo1G8Z2oM9TDiFqneQJWBtJDAoUsXUepp0OBCco+V78A J8W/huCTw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:57278 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1inquH-002iZx-Gs; Sat, 04 Jan 2020 16:24:29 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0FA379DD-0D17-4751-B9FC-94CE2374F256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VHvHQZgN40VDKg6+ZidmjLq5SisaqZ9ARZZNEq10q7gBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 13:24:24 -0800
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <251CF72E-05E3-4644-A31E-8B21134B5060@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S36227JnMkaZtPUvJoY5Pw-rQgy2R6tqt1PF_L=bgCjxCA@mail.gmail.com> <85C8C994-3FEA-4DF4-8C46-75CB205D09EA@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34EfhcthoG4Qtr0JtfsdqQPr-2=havTvq_7nh9K8XDhJA@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B9BD-3148-43C9-BCB8-E6F5DFCE69C3@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VHvHQZgN40VDKg6+ZidmjLq5SisaqZ9ARZZNEq10q7gBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/r2g-KkeS08KFQZGjpdS-SienT6M>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Rregarding soft-state and UDP options
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 21:24:33 -0000


> On Jan 4, 2020, at 10:44 AM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:36 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
> No example has been given of a transport protocol need for “drop if the option isn’t supported” that doesn’t modify the frag payload.
> 
> What about ACS? It does not modify the payload, but it affects how the payload is handled: if the ACS check fails, the payload is not delivered to the user. Those semantics can be violated if the ACE option is ignored.

ACS is mandatory so it can’t be ignored if UDP options are implemented. If it is used with FRA+LITE, the payload would be ignored by legacy receivers and would have to be accepted by option-aware receivers.

> That issue is handled in the -08 draft by making it mandatory to recognize and implement -- a point with which I disagree, as I think it should be optional to implement. But even if I don't get my way on that, the point still remains that we can't retroactively make FUTURE options such as ACS mandatory to implement.

Such as. That seems to be the mantra.

I’ve asked for a specific example of something the draft doesn’t already cover. Still waiting.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email