Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

Joe Touch <> Wed, 04 November 2015 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC941A6F38 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:12:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNWpUqp-pceg for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 461291A6F33 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA4IBRo0008782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:11:27 -0800 (PST)
To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <>,, Michael Welzl <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Joe Touch <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:11:26 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: tA4IBRo0008782
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Cc: taps WG <>,
Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 18:12:28 -0000

On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
> HI,
> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported
> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into
> One need at least to relate to the *basic functions* of the POSIX/Berkeley
> socket api standard.
> My understanding of the TCP API, for example, is that while RFC793 did
> specify an abstract API for TCP, then
> the true defacto standard for the socket api is the Berkeley socket api
> from .?. around 1990.
> Not saying the different socket api standards don't differ and that there
> is *one* standard to look at.
> But making is be RFC793 rather then what emerged as defacto in the 1990's
> seems a "bit odd" to me.

There are implementations of TCP that do not use the Berkeley sockets
model. Note, though, that the concept of a socket for communications
itself comes from RFC793, not Unix.

> Especially since we have RFCs RFC1122 dating back to 1989 already
> clarifying part of RFC793 (namely the PUSH bit)
> And one, much more recent, RFC6093, clarifying the urgent bit.

When we talk about TCP, we certainly mean more than just RFC793 - we
include all updates to that spec, which include these documents. In some
cases, the updates came from implementation experience; in other cases,
they came from the standards community because of more fundamental concerns.