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

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

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
> What I want is for the sender to be able to tell the receiver "if you
> don't understand this option then drop the packet, because accepting
> the packet is incorrect."

"... if you ignore the option."

> As pointed already, unknown options are
> already dealt with in IPv6 where two bits indicate what to do with the
> packet. The part about ICMP errors isn't needed for UDP options, so
> only one bit in type field is needed. Other than that nuance, we
> already have the solution for a common protocol problem with
> precedence, implementation, and deployment experience and it's really
> straightforward and completely stateless. I'm at a loss as to why
> there's pushback on this.

I too fail to understand the pushback. It's really simple, and it's
necessary to ensure correct handling of options that affect the
accompanying data, at least when multiple options can apply to the
same data. Such options have already been specified: any combination
of ACS, AE, and FRAG could be applied to the same data.

Mike