<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
 which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC768 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0768.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1191 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1191.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4821 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4821.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8085 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8085.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8201 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8201.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8304 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8304.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8899 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8899.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9000 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9000.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
    please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
    (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
    (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-03"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
                 or pre5378Trust200902
    you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
    they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
     full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <title abbrev="UDPO DPLPMTUD">Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options</title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

    <author fullname="Godred Fairhurst" initials="G" surname="Fairhurst">
      <organization>University of Aberdeen</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>School of Engineering</street>

          <street>Fraser Noble Building</street>

          <city>Aberdeen</city>

          <region></region>

          <code>AB24 3UE</code>

          <country>UK</country>
        </postal>

        <email>gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Tom Jones" initials="T" surname="Jones">
      <organization>University of Aberdeen</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>School of Engineering</street>

          <street>Fraser Noble Building</street>

          <city>Aberdeen</city>

          <region></region>

          <code>AB24 3UE</code>

          <country>UK</country>
        </postal>

        <email>tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2022" />

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>Transport</area>

    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
     IETF is fine for individual submissions. If this element is not
     present, the default is "Network Working Group", which is used by the
     RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>UDP UDP-Options PMTUD PLPMTUD DPLPMTUD</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies how a UDP Options sender implements Datagram
      Packetization Layer Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (DPLPMTUD)
      as a robust method for Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. This 
      method uses the UDP Options
      packetization layer. It allows a datagram application to discover the 
      largest size of datagram that can be sent
      across a specific network path.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>The User Datagram Protocol <xref target="RFC0768"></xref> offers a
      minimal transport service on top of IP and is frequently used as a
      substrate for other protocols. Section 3.5 of UDP Guidelines <xref
      target="RFC8085"></xref> recommends that applications implement some
      form of Path MTU discovery to avoid the generation of IP fragments:</t>

      <t>"Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU
      information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU Discovery
      (PMTUD)".</t>

      <t>The UDP API <xref target="RFC8304"></xref> offers calls for
      applications to receive ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages and to
      control the maximum size of datagrams that are sent, but does not offer
      any automated mechanisms for an application to discover the maximum
      packet size supported by a path. Upper layer protocols (which can
      include applications)
      implement mechanisms for Path MTU discovery above the UDP API.</t>

      <t>Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) <xref target="RFC4821"></xref>
      describes a method for a Packetization Layer (PL) (such as UDP Options)
      to search for the largest Packetization Layer PMTU (PLPMTU) supported on
      a path. Datagram PLPMTUD (DPLPMTUD) <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>
      specifies this support for datagram transports.  PLPMTUD and DPLPMTUD
      gain robustness by using a probing mechanism that does not solely rely on
      ICMP PTB messages and works on paths that drop ICMP PTB messages.</t>
	    
      <t>
	This document specifies how UDP Options 
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"></xref> can be used as a PL
	to implement DPLPMTUD (see Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>).
	      
	      In summary, UDP Options <xref target="I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"></xref> supplies
      functionality that can be used to implement DPLPMTUD within the UDP
      transport service. Implementing DPLPMTUD using UDP Options avoids the need for
      each upper layer protocol or application to implement the DPLPMTUD
      method. This provides a standard method for applications to discover the
      current maximum packet size for a path and to detect when this
	      changes.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref
      target="RFC2119"></xref> <xref target="RFC8174"></xref> when, and only
      when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
<t>	    
This document uses the terms defined for DPLPMTUD (see Sections 2 and 5 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>	    
	    </t>
	    
    </section> <!-- terms -->

<section title="DPLPMTUD for UDP Options">

	<t>There are two ways an upper PL can perform DPLPMTUD:
	<list style="symbols">	
	<t>
	The UDP Options sender implementing DPLPMTUD uses the method specified
	in <xref target="RFC8899"></xref> and the upper PL (or application)
	does not perform PMTU discovery.  In this case, UDP Options processing
	is responsible for sending probes to determine a PLPMTU, as described
	in this document.  "An application SHOULD avoid using DPLPMTUD when the
	underlying transport system provides this capability" (Section 6.1 of
	<xref target="RFC8899"></xref>).  This discovered PLPMTU can be used by
	UDP Options to either:
		 <list style="symbols">

			<t> set the maximum datagram size for the current path 
			(based on the discovered largest IP packet that can be 
			received across the current path).  </t>	
			<t> set the maximum fragment size when a sender uses the 
			UDP Fragmentation Option to divide a datagram into 
			multiple UDP fragments for transmission. Each UDP fragment 
			is then less than the discovered largest IP packet that can 
			be received across the current path.
			</t>
			
		</list>
	</t>
		
	<t>An upper PL (or application) performs DPLPMTUD (e.g., QUIC <xref
	target="RFC9000"></xref>). This upper PL then uses probes to determine
	a safe PLPMTU for the datagrams that it sends.  The format and content
	of any probe is determined by the upper PL. Such a design should avoid
	performing discovery at multiple levels, so, when configurable, this
	upper PL SHOULD disable DPLPMTUD by UDP Options.</t>
	</list>
	</t>

	<t>
	The packet formats and procedures for DPLPMTUD using UDP Options are
	described in this document. 
	</t>
</section>
    <section title="Sending UDP-Options Probe Packets">
	<t>DPLPMTUD relies upon the ability of a UDP Options sender to generate a probe
        with a specific size, up to the maximum for the size supported by a local interface. 
	This MUST NOT be constrained by the maximum PMTU
        set by network layer mechanisms (such as PMTUD <xref
        target="RFC1191"></xref><xref target="RFC8201"></xref> or the PMTU size 
		held in the IP-
   layer cache), as noted in bullet 2 of Section 3 in <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>).</t>
	    
	 <t>Probe packets consume network capacity and incur endpoint
          processing (see Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>).
          Implementations ought to send a probe with an REQ
          Option only when required by their local DPLPMTUD state machine,
          i.e., when confirming the base PMTU for the path,
	  probing to increase the PLPMTU or to confirm the current
          PLPMTU.</t>

    <section title="Sending Probe Packets using the Echo Request and Response Options">
	   <t>A UDP Options node that supports DPLPMTUD MUST 
	  support sending and receiving of the REQ Option and
	  the RES Option. When not supported,
	  DPLPMTUD will be unable to confirm the Path or to discover the PMTU.</t>
	
	   <t> <xref target="RFC8899"></xref> (Section 3, item 2) requires the network interface 
		below the PL to provide a way to transmit a probe packet 
		that is larger than the PLPMTU without network layer
                endpoint fragmentation. This document adds to this:
		UDP datagrams used as DPLPMTUD probes as described in this 
		document MUST NOT be fragmented at the UDP layer. 
	    </t>
	    
	  <t>This section describes a format of probe consisting of an
		  empty UDP datagram, UDP Options area and Padding.</t>
	  <t>
	  A Probe Packet includes the UDP Options area containing 
          a RES Option
	  and any other required options concluded with an EOL Option
	  followed by any padding needed to inflate to the required probe size.</t>
	   
	    <t>The UDP Options used in this document are described in Section 5.11 of
          <xref target="I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"></xref>:</t>

          <list style="symbols">
              <t>The REQ Option is set by a sending PL to
              solicit a response from a remote UDP
              Options receiver. A four-byte token
              identifies each request.</t>

              <t> The RES Option is generated by the UDP
              Options receiver in response to  a previously
              received REQ Option. Each RES Option echoes a
              previously received four-byte token.</t>
	      <t> Reception of a RES Option confirms that a 
		specific probe has been received by the remote UDP
		Options receiver.</t> 
	</list>
	
	<t>
	  The token allows a sender to distinguish
          between acknowledgements for initial probes and
          acknowledgements confirming receipt of subsequent probes 
          (e.g., travelling along alternate paths with a larger round trip
          time). This needs each probe to be uniquely
          identifiable by the UDP Options sender within the Maximum Segment
          Lifetime (MSL). The UDP Options sender therefore MUST NOT recycle
          token values until they have expired or have been acknowledged. A
          four byte value for the token field provides sufficient space for
          multiple unique probes to be made within the MSL. Since UDP Options
	  operates over UDP, the token values only need to be unique for
	  the specific 5-tuple over which DPLPMTUD is operating.
	  </t>

	 <t>The value of the four byte token field SHOULD be initialised
          to a randomised value to enhance protection from off-path attacks,
          as described in Section 5.1 of <xref target="RFC8085"></xref>).</t>
	    
	 <t>Like other UDP options, each of the two option kinds MUST NOT appear more than once in each 
	UDP datagram.</t>

    </section> 	<!-- Format Chapter -->	    
	<section anchor="UDPOPT-PLPMTUD" title="DPLPMTUD Procedures for UDP Options">
	  <t> DPLPMTUD utilises three types of probes. These are described in the following sections:</t>
	<list style="symbols">
		<t>A probe to confirm the path can support the BASE_PLPMTU (see Section 5.1.4 of <xref
        target="RFC8899"></xref>).</t>
		<t>A probe to detect whether the path can support a larger PLPMTU.</t>
		<t>A probe to validate the path supports the current PLPMTU.</t>
	</list> 
			     
      <section title="Confirmation of Connectivity across a Path">
        <t>The DPLPMTUD method requires a PL to confirm
        connectivity over the path using the BASE_PLPMTU (see Section 5.1.4 of <xref
        target="RFC8899"></xref>), but UDP does not offer a mechanism for
        this.</t>

        <t>UDP Options can provide this required functionality. A UDP Options
        sender implementing this specification MUST elicit a positive
        confirmation of connectivity for the path, by sending a probe,
	padded to size BASE_PLPMTU. This confirmation probe MUST
	include a UDP option that elicits a response from the remote endpoint
	(e.g., by including the RES and REQ Options) to confirm that
	a packet of the size traversed the path. This also confirms that the
	remote receiver supports use of the RES and REQ Options.</t>
       </section> 

	<section title="Sending Probe Packets to Increase the PLPMTU">

	<t>From time to time, DPLPMTUD enters the SEARCHING state
	<xref target="RFC8899"></xref> (e.g., after expiry of the PMTU_RAISE_TIMER)
	to detect whether the current
	path can support a larger PLPMTU. 
	When the remote endpoint advertises a UDP Maximum Segment Size 
	(MSS) option, this value can be used as a hint to 
	initialise this search to increase the PLPMTU.</t>

	<t> Probe packets seeking to increase the PLPMTU SHOULD NOT carry application data
	(see "Probing using padding data" in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>),	
	since they will be lost whenever their size exceeds the actual PMTU.</t>      
	 
	<t>A probe seeking to increase the PLPMTU
	needs to elicit a positive acknowledgment that the path has
        delivered a datagram of the specific probed size and, therefore, MUST include the
	REQ Option.</t>
	<t>
	Received probes that do not carry application data
	do not form a part of the end-to-end
	transport data and are not delivered to the upper layer protocol.</t>
	</section>

      <section title="Validating the Path with UDP Options">
	      
	<t>A PL using DPLPMTUD needs to validate that a path continues to support the
        PLPMTU discovered in a previous search for a suitable PLPMTU value
        (see Section 6.1.4 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>). 
	This validation sends probes in the
        DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state to detect black-holing of data
        (see Section 4.2 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>).  
	</t>	
	      
	<t>This function can be implemented within UDP Options, by generating
        a probe of size PLPMTU, which MUST include a REQ Option to elicit a
        positive confirmation whether the path has delivered the probe.
	This confirmation probe MAY use "Probing using padding data" or "Probing using
	application data and padding data" (see Section 4.1 of <xref
	target="RFC8899"></xref>) or can construct a probe packet that does not carry any
	application data, as described in a previous section.</t>		
      </section>
	    
  <section title="Probe Packets that do not include Application Data">        
	  <t>
	  A simple implementation of the method might be designed
	  to only probe packets formed of a UDP datagram that include no 
	  application data. Each probe packet is padded to the required 
	  probe size including the REQ Option. This implements
          "Probing using padding data"(Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>),
	  and avoids having to retransmit
          application data when a probe fails.
	  In this use, the probe packets do not form a part of the end-to-end
	  transport data and a receiver does not deliver them to the upper layer protocol.
	  </t>
 </section>
		
<section title="Probe Packets that include Application Data">
	  <t>
	  An implementation always uses the format in the previous section
	  when DPLPMTUD searches to increase the PLPMTU.</t>
	  <t>
          An alternative format is permitted for a probe that confirms
	  connectivity or that validates the path. 
          These probes are permitted to carry application data. 
	  (The data is permitted because these probes perform blackhole detection
	  and will therefore usually have a higher probability of successful 
	  transmission, similar to other packets sent by the upper layer protocol.)
	   Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref> provides a discussion of
	the merits and demerits of including application data. For example, this
	reduces the need to send additional datagrams. 
	</t>	  
	<t> The probe could utilise
	a control message format defined by the upper layer protocol that does not need to
	be delivered reliably. The RES and REQ Options need to be
	included by the sending upper layer protocol and the values of the tokens need to be coordinated
	with values used for other DPLPMTUD probe packets. 
	The DPLPMTUD method tracks the transmission and reception of these probe packets.
	Probes with this format form a part of the end-to-end
	transport data and a receiver needs to deliver the RES and REQ Options to the 
	upper layer protocol.</t>
</section>
		
      <section title="Changes in the Path">
	<t>A change in the path or the loss of probe packets can result in a change
	of the PLPMTU. DPLPMTUD
	<xref target="RFC8899"></xref> recommends that methods are robust to path changes
	that could have occurred since the path characteristics were last
	confirmed and to the possibility of inconsistent path information being
	received. For example, a notification that a path could have changed could
	trigger path validation to provide black hole protection 
	Section 4.3 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref>).</t>

	<t>Section 3 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref> requires any methods 
	designed to share the PLPMTU
	between PLs (such as updating the IP cache PMTU for an
	interface/destination) to be robust to the wide variety of underlying
	network forwarding behaviors.  For example, an implementation could avoid
	sharing PMTU information that could potentially relate to packets sent
	with the same address over a different interface.</t>
	</section>
      </section> <!-- DPLPMTUD Chapter -->

      <section title="PTB Message Handling for this Method">
        <t> Support for receiving ICMP PTB messages is
	OPTIONAL for use with DPLPMTUD. A UDP Options sender 
	can therefore ignore received ICMP PTB messages.</t>

        <t>A UDP Options sender that utilises ICMP PTB messages received 
	in response to a
        probe packet MUST use the quoted packet to validate the UDP port
        information in combination with the token
        contained in the UDP Option, before processing the packet using the
        DPLPMTUD method. Section 4.6.1 of <xref target="RFC8899"></xref> specifies
	this validation procedure. An
        implementation unable to support this validation needs to ignore
        received ICMP PTB messages.</t>

      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>Gorry Fairhurst and Tom Jones are supported by funding provided by
      the University of Aberdeen.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This memo includes no requests to IANA.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The security considerations for using UDP Options are described in
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"></xref>. The proposed new
      method does not change the integrity protection offered by the UDP
      options method.</t>
	    
	<t>The security considerations for using DPLPMTUD are described in <xref
        target="RFC8899"></xref>. On path attackers could maliciously drop 
	or modify probe packets to seek to decrease the PMTU, or
        to maliciously modify probe packets in an attempt to blackhole traffic.</t>
	    
      <t>The specification recommends that the nonce value in the REQ Option is
      initialised to a randomised value. This is designed to enhance protection from off-path
      attacks. 
	If subsequent probes use a nonce value that is easily derived from the initial value,
	(e.g., incrementing the value) then a  misbehaving on-path node could then
	determine the nonce for subsequent probes from 
	that sender, even if these probes are not transiting via the misbehaving node. 
	This would allow probe packets to be forged, with an impact similar to other on-path 
	attacks against probe packets.
	This attack could be mitigated by using an unpredictable 
	nonce value for each probe.</t>
	      
  	<t>The proposed new method does not change the
      ICMP PTB message validation method described by DPLPMTUD: A UDP Options
      sender that utilities ICMP PTB messages received to a probe packet MUST
      use the quoted packet to validate the UDP port information in
      combination with the token contained in the UDP
      Option, before processing the packet using the DPLPMTUD method.
      </t>   
	    
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->

      &RFC768;

      &RFC2119;

      &RFC8174;

      &RFC8899;

      &I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options;
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      &RFC1191;

      &RFC4821;

      &RFC8085;

      &RFC8201;

      &RFC8304;

      &RFC9000;
	  
    </references>

    <section title="Revision Notes">
      <t>XXX Note to RFC-Editor: please remove this entire section prior to
      publication. XXX</t>

      <t>Individual draft-00.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>This version contains a description for consideration and comment
          by the TSVWG.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Individual draft-01.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Address Nits</t>

          <t>Change Probe Request and Probe Reponse options to Echo to align
          names with draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options</t>

          <t>Remove Appendix B, Informative Description of new UDP Options</t>

          <t>Add additional sections around Probe Packet generation</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Individual draft-02.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Address Nits</t>
        </list>Individual draft-03.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Referenced DPLPMTUD RFC.</t>

          <t>Tidied language to clarify the method.</t>
        </list>Individual draft-04</t>
      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Reworded text on probing with data a little</t>
          <t>Removed paragraph on suspending ICMP PTB suspension.</t>
        </list>Working group draft-00</t>
      <t><list style="symbols">
      
	  <t>-00 First Working Group Version</t>

          <t>RFC8899 call search_done SEARCH_COMPLETE, fix</t>
	      </list></t>
	<t>Working group draft -01</t>
       <t><list style="symbols">
	  
          <t>Update to reflect new fragmentation design in UDP Options.</t>
          <t>Add a description of uses of DPLPMTUD with UDP Options.</t>
          <t>Add a description on how to form probe packets with padding.</t>
          <t>Say that MSS options can be used to initialise the search algorithm.</t>
          <t>Say that the recommended approach is to not use user data for probes.</t>
	  <t>Attempts to clarify and improve wording throughout.</t>
	  <t>Remove text saying you can respond to multiple probes in a single packet.</t>
	  <t>Simplified text by removing options that don't yield benefit.</t>

        </list></t>
	    <t>Working group draft -02</t>
       <t><list style="symbols">  
          <t>Update to reflect comments from MED.</t>
          <t>More consistent description of DPLPMTUD with UDP Options.</t>
          <t>Clarify the nonce value (token) is intended per 5-tuple, not interface.</t>
          <t>BASE_PLPMTU related to RFC8899.</t>
          <t>Probes with user data can carry application control data.</t>
	  <t>Added that application data uses RES and REQ nonce (token) values from the app.</t>
	  <t>QUIC was intended as an informational reference to an example of RFC8899.</t>
        </list></t>
	 <t>Working group draft -03</t>
       <t><list style="symbols">  
          <t>Update to reflect more comments from MED.</t>
          <t>Again more consistent description of DPLPMTUD with UDP Options.</t>
	       <t>Clarify token/nonce to use "token". </t>
	  <t>Clarify any use of application data for blackhole detection.</t>
          <t>Minor changes to reflect update to UDP Options base spec.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>
  </back>

</rfc>
