That’s the better wording! > On 18. Mar 2020, at 15:55, Joseph Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 18, 2020, at 5:50 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Indeed, the protocol parser and the SCHC rules need to know about the UDP >>> TLVs if one wants to compress them. >>> But the same is true of all the other fields. I don't think this one >>> warrants a special notice. >>> What I insist on is that, if an implementation does not know of the UDP >>> TLVs, it will not reconstruct an erroneous UDP Length, even for a packet >>> that contains these TLVs, assuming that the protocol parser checks the UDP >>> and IPv6 lengths for consistency. >> >> I think this last statement (“protocol parser checks the UDP >> and IPv6 lengths for consistency”) is the important point that needs to be explicitly mention in the document! > > That way of phrasing it is dangerous - it implies that when the values differ there is some sort of error. > > It would be more in line with current TSV efforts to standardize UDP options to say “UDP length can be compressed when it *can* be computed from the IP length” and that “it MUST NOT be compressed as computable otherwise”. > > Joe -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
