Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <> Thu, 27 July 2017 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4352F131891 for <>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
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: (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIQJD_vcvUsr for <>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985C91318A2 for <>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; 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 (HELO ? ( by 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)" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:01:37 +0200
Cc:, tcpinc <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Joe Touch <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <>:
>>> 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.