Yeah the thought occurred to me "why would we mention anything above IP at all?" I checked the Security draft and there is actually no relevant mention of TCP or UDP. So I think this is a no-op as far as the Security draft is concerned. Of course I could be missing something, so please correct me if necessary, but that's my current understanding. Ethan. -----Original Message----- From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:12 AM To: Grossman, Ethan A. <eagros@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip.all@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Detnet] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06 > On 24 Sep 2020, at 21:28, Grossman, Ethan A. <eagros@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks Stephen. FWIW it isn't too late to add some text to the DetNet Security draft regarding DetNet over UDP, if someone can think up something useful to say. I suppose one could simply mention UDP in the same breath as TCP (implying that the same general security guidelines apply, if that's our stance). > Any thoughts (from anyone)? Ethan I would be rather surprised if anyone tried to run a deterministic application over TCP. TCP would undo all the temporal determinism and or course it looks after packet loss. - Stewart -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
