Subject: Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:34:55 +0000

Hi,

(Without my AD hat, instead as a contributor to MASQUE)

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:19 +0100, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> However, there is a concrete use case in the IETF for exchanging QUIC packets
> not in plain old UDP datagrams - MASQUE [1]. Perhaps that could be a suitable
> venue for some of the things you have in mind?

But, MASQUE will provide UDP/IP semantics for a end-to-end QUIC connection over
MASQUE. As mentiond by Martin, QUIC is dependent on some lower layer functions
and that is why I am trying to start a discussion about the need to preserve
these services/functions in MASQUE. See 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-masque-transport-issues/

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:36:36 -0500

Hi all,

I had a somewhat related question/comment on UDP/QUIC relationship.

QUIC draft mentions UDP in many places, it says QUIC is UDP-based but in
the draft RFC 768 is not listed as a reference informative/normative.

Second, probably more importantly, UDP header has the fields
source/destination port and checksum. These are not mentioned in the draft.
I wonder why?

If these issues were discussed before please give me a link so I can check.

Regards,
Behcet

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:56:09 +0300

Hi,

On 2020-9-4, at 18:36, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]> wrote:
> QUIC draft mentions UDP in many places, it says QUIC is UDP-based but in the draft RFC 768 is not listed as a reference informative/normative.

I opened https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4073 to fix that - thank you for noticing.

> Second, probably more importantly, UDP header has the fields source/destination port and checksum. These are not mentioned in the draft.
> I wonder why?

What would you expect the drafts to say about checksums and ports?

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 11:07:31 -0500

> What would you expect the drafts to say about checksums and ports?
Yes, I realize that the draft mentions ports.
What I think should be mentioned is if these header fields are required
then what are the requirements on implementations, or just refer to RFC 768?

Behcet

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:34:53 -0700

On 9/4/2020 9:07 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM Lars Eggert <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On 2020-9-4, at 18:36, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>     > QUIC draft mentions UDP in many places, it says QUIC is
>     UDP-based but in the draft RFC 768 is not listed as a reference
>     informative/normative.
>
> What I think should be mentioned is if these header fields are
> required then what are the requirements on implementations, or just
> refer to RFC 768?

Let's just refer to RFC 768. In particular, let's not have a protracted
discussion about UDP versus UDP-lite...

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:15:06 -0700

Hi Behcet,

Thank you for pointing out this glaring omission! It's now been fixed in
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4073.

- jana