Re: draft-cameron-tmux-01.tx

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu> Tue, 16 November 1993 23:15 UTC

Message-Id: <199311162241.OAA26442@Mordor.Stanford.EDU>
To: "Beast (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd)" <beast@world.std.com>
Cc: cmp-id@xylint.co.uk
Subject: Re: draft-cameron-tmux-01.tx
Phone: +1 408 246 8253; fax: +1 408 249 6205
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 02 Nov 93 02:56:17 -0500. <199311020756.AA00203@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 14:41:45 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu>

well, I *thought* that I had read all the notes.

More on TOS.

You are, of course, correct that TOS is mandated.  However, it is a
bloody useless field and there is no expectation that it will change
anytime soon.

Further, this is the originating host doing the ignoring.  It ought to
know how important any of that stuff is.  To the extent the spec should
comment on TOS (and I suspect that your raising the issue is a good
indicator that the spec should say something specific) then it should
caution the TMUX creator to synthesize and "appropriate" TOS value from
those of the clients.

Note that we've heard of TMuxing FTP and Telnet traffic.  They have
different expected TOSs, yet the sender decides to multiplex them.  The
sending TMux then gets to decide how to set the TOS value for the
resulting single datagram.

Dave

Re: draft-cameron-tmux-01.tx Beast (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd)
Re: draft-cameron-tmux-01.tx Dave Crocker
Re: draft-cameron-tmux-01.tx Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)