search

tsvwg / draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options

0 stars 0 forks source link

Tom H: WGLC comments on Section 11.9: Authentication #58

Open Mike-Heard opened 2 months ago

Mike-Heard commented 2 months ago

Section 11.9:

"Authentication (AUTH), RESERVED Only"

I suggest removing this section. There's little value in reserving the kind number without any specification of the protocol. Also, this is making a design decision that Auth is a SAFE which I disagree with, so if Auth is removed from the draft then we can defer the discussion as to whether Auth should be a SAFE or UNSAFE option.

Mike-Heard commented 2 months ago

Significant editorial effort will be required if this section is removed. If the WG consensus is to keep AUTH but to make it UNSAFE as argued in Issue #34, perhaps it can be merged with UENC (akin to the old AE) or placed in a companion section.

gorryfair commented 1 month ago

The potential merit of a placeholder to describe the role of AUTH, was explained by Joe previously - this should be factored into this issue.

tompandadev commented 1 month ago

If it's not removed then can the WG chairs do a consensus call? I believe the question is "Should Auth Option be UNSAFE such that it can be arbitrarily ignored by a receiver when the option is present?".

Mike-Heard commented 1 month ago

If it's not removed then can the WG chairs do a consensus call? I believe the question is "Should Auth Option be UNSAFE such that it can be arbitrarily ignored by a receiver when the option is present?".

I support Tom's request for a consensus call on this matter, but suggest that a more general question be asked: "Should AUTH and APC be left as-is, be redefined and UNSAFE options, or removed altogether?" See also Issue #34, where I made a similar suggestion.