Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104

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

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 6:49 PM Black, David wrote:
> Still as an individual ...
>
> > What I was actually advocating was that in the presence of any option marked
> > "drop if unknown" there MUST NOT be any legacy data, i.e, such options
> > could not appear in the trailer format. All payload would have to be in the
> > surplus area (which requires the header format). In that case, "drop the
> > packet" and "drop the surplus" would amount to the same thing.
>
> That would "freeze" LITE - if we ever found anything problematic with LITE and
> wanted to replace it with LITE2, that replacement would be prohibited by such
> a requirement.

Forgive me for being thick, but I don't quite get what you are saying. Is this
problem specific to LITE, and in particular LITE in the variant proposed by
Derek? Or would it also be true of other options that affect how the payload
is processed, such as FRAG, AE, and ACS, which are the ones for which I claim
need to be marked as "drop if unknown"? I would imagine that for those a
replacement could be effected with a new option kind (as was done when TCP-AO
replaced TCP-MD5).

Thanks,

Mike