>> "Must-support" options other than NOP and EOL MUST be placed by
the transmitter before other UDP options and a receiver MUST drop
all UDP options in such malformed packet (i.e., in which this
ordering is not honored) and that event MAY be logged for
diagnostics (logging SHOULD be rate limited).
The requirement that must-support options come before others is
intended to allow for endpoints to implement DOS protection, as
discussed further in Section 24.
This rule does not work for certain proposed options such as UCMP (and probably UENC), which must appear before other currently-defined options. So the proper requirement to levy on the transmitter is that it SHOULD place the "must-support" options before other UDP options. And even if this were not the case, it would IMO be overly prescriptive to require that the receiver drop the entire options area if this dictum is not respected. It is out of line with the less prescriptive advice in Section 24 (and the advice in Section 11.2 regarding repeated NOPs), which IMO is quite sufficient. Proposed replacement text:
>> "Must-support" options other than NOP and EOL SHOULD be placed by
the transmitter before other UDP options.
The requirement that must-support options should come before others
is intended to allow for endpoints to implement DOS protection, as
discussed further in Section 24.
In Section 10 I see;
This rule does not work for certain proposed options such as UCMP (and probably UENC), which must appear before other currently-defined options. So the proper requirement to levy on the transmitter is that it SHOULD place the "must-support" options before other UDP options. And even if this were not the case, it would IMO be overly prescriptive to require that the receiver drop the entire options area if this dictum is not respected. It is out of line with the less prescriptive advice in Section 24 (and the advice in Section 11.2 regarding repeated NOPs), which IMO is quite sufficient. Proposed replacement text: