Subject: [tsvwg] Remarks regarding draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-16.txt

From: Erik Auerswald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:48:10 +0100

Hello Joe,

regarding draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-16:

Section 7, The Option Checksum (OCS), introduces the OCS option as a
32-bit checksum, but then describes it as the 16-bit Internet checksum.
I think this should be changed to always say 16-bit:

OLD:

   The Option Checksum (OCS) option is conventional Internet checksum
   [RFC791] that detects errors in the surplus area. The OCS option
   contains a 32-bit checksum that is aligned to the first 4-byte
   boundary, preceded by zeroes for padding (if needed), as shown in
   Figure 4.

NEW:

   The Option Checksum (OCS) option is conventional Internet checksum
   [RFC791] that detects errors in the surplus area. The OCS option
   contains a 16-bit checksum that is aligned to the first 4-byte
   boundary, preceded by zeroes for padding (if needed), as shown in
   Figure 4.

The table listing currently defined UDP options does not contain the
Kind value 192.  The text following the table describes Kind 192 as
part of the UNSAFE options.  I would suggest to add 192 to the table
as UNASSIGNED-UNSAFE:

OLD:

         Kind    Length    Meaning
         ----------------------------------------------
         [...]
         128-191           RESERVED

         193     (varies)  Encryption (UENC)
         194-253           UNASSIGNED-UNSAFE (assignable by IANA)
         [...]

NEW:

         Kind    Length    Meaning
         ----------------------------------------------
         [...]
         128-191           RESERVED
         192               UNASSIGNED-UNSAFE (assignable by IANA)
         193     (varies)  Encryption (UENC)
         194-253           UNASSIGNED-UNSAFE (assignable by IANA)
         [...]

(It might be more consistent to either remove the "(varies)" length
field for the UNASSIGNED table entry, or add it to the UNASSIGNED-UNSAFE
entries.)

HTH,
Erik

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:45:26 -0700

Hi, Erik,

Thanks - these are both now fixed in -17 in process.

Joe

—
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Mar 21, 2022, at 1:48 AM, Erik Auerswald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Joe,
>