Subject: [tsvwg] UDP Options ID

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:59:54 +0100

Joe,

Is it possible to make a new revision of the UDP-O ID, at least to 
capture two points that were raised in the last petriod about:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-08

(1) In Section 5.1:

Following Raffaele Zullo's comment on the OCS. The text currently says:

"OCS is calculated by computing the Internet checksum over the
surplus area."

- However, to allow this to work through NAPT and other middleboxes, 
this also requires the UDP Options length (i.e. IP Payload length minus 
UDP Length) to be included in this computation.

(2) The idea to remove the LITE option from the spec was discussed
at IETF-106, as a major simplification to the spec. that might also
align with initial implementation work.

Gorry

- https://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/minutes?item=minutes-106-tsvwg-04.html

---

From: Joseph Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:19:59 -0700

Hi, Gorry,

I can definitely finish 1 this weekend; I’ll see what I can do to include 2 as well. This is with the caveat that I can’t present at the next meeting (I’ve been working overtime lately; while some industries are idling, my current one is running full tilt and then some).

Joe

> On Jul 9, 2020, at 5:59 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Is it possible to make a new revision of the UDP-O ID, at least to capture two points that were raised in the last petriod about:
> 
> - However, to allow this to work through NAPT and other middleboxes, this also requires the UDP Options length (i.e. IP Payload length minus UDP Length) to be included in this computation.
>