Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 27 July 2017 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4352F131891 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIQJD_vcvUsr for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985C91318A2 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=LGWwb0XgphBTK8ztRfsSsG+i5wR8qEak7WoyMSf1IadwkGF+MN4K14jc5+V5ozhTFBg8ei1CB7n/cqc6tHE2WgvrQlJJAW81aASjws5Smi/i31Hgz0xHU6kPUclbYSFSLrWIsDYDrghGtSPGUhIu3uHAgZe/NhwLakDqj/bZ5yo=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 21678 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2017 19:01:38 +0200
Received: from pd9e11f0f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (217.225.31.15) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 27 Jul 2017 19:01:38 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <68220a4f-01dd-61dc-0e68-8c9fc68587bf@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:01:37 +0200
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno.all@ietf.org, tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BF001C41-862C-4301-9D20-4DDC23CB040D@kuehlewind.net>
References: <55B07DA5-E274-4720-A919-83483094B9A0@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <80C705CD-8A24-49A9-A1B8-6FA7B2162941@kuehlewind.net> <baad59c7-03cb-738a-e1b9-185931fe96a2@isi.edu> <E855DFC2-1D60-4FF5-B67A-3E2DE4B44541@kuehlewind.net> <68220a4f-01dd-61dc-0e68-8c9fc68587bf@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20170727170138.21672.89592@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/lvnOCEN8SIbYSYdnN_9zzQHh3sY>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:01:42 -0000

Hi again,

> Am 27.07.2017 um 17:40 schrieb Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>du>:
> 
>>> Finally, IMO, if a TCP option codepoint is assigned, I strongly
>>> recommend not poisoning the codepoint space with a "fresh" assignment,
>>> nor should the developers be rewarded for squatting on a value. The only
>>> appropriate solution IMO, in that case, would be to assign this option
>>> to a codepoint already squatted **by another party**. In that case,
>>> their deployment would appropriately suffer from the impact of squatting.
>> While I know the problems with squatting that we have, I don’t think is a suitable option to enable good deployment for this or any new IETF protocols that we invested a lot of time in. 
> Actually, I think this is EXACTLY the kind of option to do this - those
> who create the problem of squatting should experience the impact of
> their actions.
> 
>> I though we had this discussion already and concluded that the best viable option for this case is the number that they already squatted on. 
> I don't know if we did, but I don't think that's appropriate - it
> encourages squatting by rewarding it.

I totally understand your viewpoint here. However, if you want to find a way to penalize squatting, this is not it. The squatting was induced by individuals before this proposal was brought to the IETF. TCP-eno will now be published as an IETF consensus document as as such we as a community should provide support to make its deployment successful.

Mirja