Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 21:52:27 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Transport Options for UDP
        Author          : Joe Touch
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2019-03-08

Abstract:
   Transport protocols are extended through the use of transport header
   options. This document experimentally extends UDP by indicating the
   location, syntax, and semantics for UDP transport layer options.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 21:53:39 -0800

This corrects some errors in the processing instructions and rules for
new options.

Joe

---

From: Raffaele Zullo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 11:51:22 +0000

> This corrects some errors in the processing instructions and rules for

Hello Joe,
I am sorry but I'd have to disagree with this:

    The adjustment above helps enable that OCS, together with the other
    options, result in an overall zero ones-complement sum. This feature
    is intended to potentially help the UDP options traverse devices
    that incorrectly attempt to checksum the surplus area (as originally
    proposed as the Checksum Compensation Option, i.e., CCO [Fa18]).

The new OCS is different from CCO and can't help to traverse the devices 
traversed by CCO.

Those devices not only compute UDP checksum over UDP Options area but 
also use IP Payload length instead of UDP Length in UDP pseudo-header.

(In other words to cross those problematic devices the checksum of UDP 
Options area should not be zero but equal to minus the length of 
Options)

This is why CCO included a pseudo-header (containing UDP Options length) 
and handled its alignment with the start of UDP Options.

Thank you,
Raffaele Zullo