IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] A review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-12

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 11 June 2021 16:40 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 70BC63A0FEC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, 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 NZQHnAJQRtVh for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217.web-hosting.com (unknown [198.54.114.98]) (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 2846F3A0FEB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: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=HCokbk5sZpx9kLBKryK4MjHjuDipmwNrgMS88WzsOdk=; b=JmtmoxRTl5ETCewMphytH4ZFNt y+q/imYpOYf43yMaaZ5LRu2NQmf6CAOBbQD2vjA/HoThFq6LeSk+giyEtQpg5LYKSgYjEzy5B4hp5 dEYNOHig0UVMS7UhujzsfsLZY0orBdYGOksnPWPICsgd9u9XzGnWVmBiSO7GOEV2Q+rqM/ULDva9P zqTY2GIADexRKDm77CFrhdO3SRp8rHZuVf02ChaCYdYv38kY4zhNdsdJwo/Sbe7G3mhYjoTfdcXR1 8KAJvUWzXqPeQkkpp/zCRmrE4JX0n2nlWJl3ueVqzwF0Vi0U4wRG+I/Bf79UV1vf+6TkIaIBwuDWa qj85vcNQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:55528 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lrkCL-001FRj-L4; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:40:01 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <7aaa39d3-0431-e4b0-36bd-1db0686b24dc@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:39:56 -0700
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1FF4F896-0CB8-4AC6-93A4-EAA716BB21A6@strayalpha.com>
References: <CACL_3VGb_9P5SfPGRJtf1ZBvEhgywc2ZEGr-qbgNOMXV20rFeA@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VHyoRr5ju8203DiLTUo-658DCj7ud+1dQE2o0hUPVhF0A@mail.gmail.com> <7D766992-AEEB-434F-BB1D-3817EE07DE61@strayalpha.com> <11037_1623411791_60C34C4F_11037_1_3_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353A9C56@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7aaa39d3-0431-e4b0-36bd-1db0686b24dc@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
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/wholRDLrBiSt0URtRmZ7kY8ixSg>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-12
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: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:40:08 -0000

Hi, all,

I agree with everyone that FRAG support shouldn’t be open-ended. Maybe we can say MUST implement at least 2-fragment reassembly, SHOULD implement up to 9K (that’s the upper bound on most MTUs that aren’t 64K AFAICT).

I understand it’s the last thing to be implemented because it’s hard, but that alone isn’t a reason to make it optional. Maybe we should just skip RDMA support as unnecessary; RDMA perhaps should tune to MTU rather than rely on long streams of UDP fragments. 

Also, I agree that REQ/RES needs to be explained; the I shared Gorry’s assumption that these two docs would go in together.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email