Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:06:02 -0700

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-08.txt
	Pages           : 33
	Date            : 2019-09-12

Abstract:
   Transport protocols are extended through the use of transport header
   options. This document 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-08
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-08

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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:14:24 -0700

Hi, all,

This is a quick update to cover the following:

- update conventions to cite "standard" caps-only text (was that
seriously necessary?)

- remove 'experimentally' throughout; this is standards-track

- add the extended length format

- correct the lengths in the summary table

- require post-options area of surplus to be zero-fill

- fix the figure and description of OCS to use a 16-bit checksum

- define OCS as required when UDP CS != 0

- change ACS from a 16-bit CRC to CRC32c

There are more than a few other changes underway based on feedback from
the last meeting. The concept behind those changes will be posted for
feedback when developed further for WG feedback before being included in
the next update.

I.e., please don't treat the fact that the rest hasn't changed as
anything beyond "TBD".

Comments on *these changes* welcome, of course.

Thanks!

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:30:23 -0700

Hi, all,

A summary of some other issues:

- regarding PADN

I have not been able to identify a need for this vs. use of EOL and
zero-fill for the remainder of the surplus area. If anyone can show a
need for this *in a transport protocol*, please indicate.

- regarding LITE, FRAG, LITE+FRAG

(working on text now)

- regarding MUST SUPPORT flag

The only need for this flag has been data that must not be received by
legacy endpoints, e.g., compressed. That's already achievable more
flexibly using the FRAG+LITE with pre and post reassembly options. Can
anyone show a case this doesn't cover?

Joe