[tsvwg] Re: Resolving UDP Options Issue #52

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Thu, 15 August 2024 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 7F783C180B49; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pUfbdKU2i2TX; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FC23C14F5E0; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846AD2D1FA; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:20:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc:content-type; s=sasl; bh=SAVNbg6RJ6oToHE9wRAwRp1gNUrMgpzt YwJG2lvChX0=; b=l5Waal/SIXpRR+z/s0RFIqLPvBSBEeVB+csiXcWRg6/uIHDD jm9PkOB9mRZNzvg85UM99YbDgBT0Lw+a4aCBA5d6/IzkGsG7SSOSNqKiXIwinMD6 eAL5w2+femy89VfOgEA416bmXFgTkFkRn+Vka/QxH4cYJ23iDAlJVgvpI1Q=
Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E75D2D1F9; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:20:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (unknown [209.85.218.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 371472D1F8; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:20:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a7aada2358fso235889366b.0; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWDlkyMjYmp4ndQO5Xvgz9r+InisQ4OT5ofPJPBksTclRVKvrFl3en3m5BXqep2kYjGk7AzB/2ae28/Sx4USdRuMssl8MQMGvWz/o5a40/dcH0c6o8L7e9FTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw2nEX9QOkRx9yw89CW/wDKyVsSH+HATTVdH7LmhMDY4gXV7vjf AJzIQ/slQJdvptlx1RXM4vWPl4GGHlEVG334Id0qmqRoJEvYyYVGLEcdDCdEwX37q5YHtutODy7 dMvTTD6SWLJS7mDqtPEiiSgMpkzI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHjPjWk8wveAsR/u52a8PDxdewBg8C4V8vdhK2AA3grBsBYQS8ZmNEF7+S1hm+8o9oomjV/dPY/KOD6Gu4vvuI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:60d0:b0:a7a:8284:c8d6 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a837ccec6aamr144812666b.24.1723684849995; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxSpwRF5E3Xc_hotgvCSdKVe4BY_zRUKAzHvW48JEtWqTA@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VFieMviT7vQ=1u2gVFs4miecnQWS6ky_pFdUWRMxzp9Ww@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VF9RJuh_CBt4gN9YVBN=C2t+xWoPsXAEhsyMs3d68qT7g@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VEydAE6Ly=c=9ZsJx2T-cX+0Knm6Eu18CGtdbX_Jv6e8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VEydAE6Ly=c=9ZsJx2T-cX+0Knm6Eu18CGtdbX_Jv6e8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:20:37 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VE=06Urdi2TcFFpkA5di8DDHpeQ3Uwes8_5_o3ZLNYYqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VE=06Urdi2TcFFpkA5di8DDHpeQ3Uwes8_5_o3ZLNYYqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003061a4061faea717"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9CBABAD0-5AA4-11EF-949A-E92ED1CD468F-06080547!pb-smtp21.pobox.com
Message-ID-Hash: PRF7NDCLHSKIZSQ5PXVZIS5K5NXIVQFM
X-Message-ID-Hash: PRF7NDCLHSKIZSQ5PXVZIS5K5NXIVQFM
X-MailFrom: heard@pobox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options.all@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: Resolving UDP Options Issue #52
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/ydH_glzigOrV0YvRACSQB1gwx8g>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 3:06 PM C. M. Heard wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> After discussion between the author, the editor, and the document
> shepherd, the editor's current thinking is to address Issue 52
> <https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/52> with
> the following text:
>
> >> Endpoints supporting UDP options MUST be capable of fragmenting and
> reassembling at least two fragments, *each of a size that will fit within
> the standard Ethernet MTU of 1,500 bytes. This corresponds to a maximum
> pre-fragmentation or post-reassembly UDP packet size (including the UDP
> header and any per-datagram UDP options) of 2,926 bytes for IPv4 and 2,886
> bytes for IPv6. Note that these maximum sizes are not guaranteed to be
> achievable under all circumstances; for further details, please see Section
> 11.6.*
>
>
That has been changed (at the author's request) to

> >> Endpoints supporting UDP options MUST be capable of fragmenting and
> reassembling at least two fragments, *each of a size that will fit within
> the standard Ethernet MTU of 1,500 bytes. For further details, please see
> Section 11.6.*
>
>
The text in 11.6 (see #63
<https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/63>) remains
as previously proposed.

 Expect an updated draft within a few days.

Mike Heard

>