Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBC312091B for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:08:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 c5qDIOqS-vtI for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9633D12095B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:08:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xMuolm5aPgth05O0tKnW9y2lxr5sfpbcSpDkdXHHO2U=; b=XsaeFgjBvfnwAiPJXPAkAwsmR HNu+PnWWJMBVFTCEmgYYkfKWPFDELHzDazQiRAbnzCWIanNcPcIL6oGB3ZgoQs+KwjrGXKupmysWB ZuBUrkvQjtB5xK/LmvczaAgrEvtkAmtLq983gjo7iPoOKP3P0580YCXkvQsK/wj+ISSTl5md4rNXs kEg1PF8X8F9fPUwxqQnYZik+fPZjJp5JqQogT4uFUoxepuo5vzxMMQoMluASmRMSsN9uCxcZKKTKy c9wtkzGhCYpJ2Mpj33BmK0F38I86AgGeWDdQsksQapuNOB0UpMKasBPDdYfScMq7zn3MoET7ibeVt t8GOVF++w==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:52357 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1iRSjL-00122Y-OK; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 22:08:40 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A5038606-CF71-4712-B367-F31B465D490C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4D9D3B@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:08:34 -0800
Cc: Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>, Richard Scheffenegger <rscheff@gmx.at>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-Id: <B4985D00-0B05-497D-B469-5FE2000D3D28@strayalpha.com>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D437915@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <13123FDD-D69C-4D67-9F1B-B9B27FB6A234@eggert.org> <7c24fae0-36d1-30a1-88a8-c93c65116595@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4D9D3B@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/64Ng_VlHbv7MPQlNUq7uY8CcwtY>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 03:08:49 -0000

Why do we need this process exception?

We have 793bis in process. If we need to assign a bit in the header - to any specific use or as experimental - that seems like the appropriate venue in which to do so.

Joe

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
>  
> With chair hat on: There was a discussion „in the room“ during IETF 99 and the outcome of a hum „in the room“ is documented in the minutes. In TCPM, consensus is confirmed on the list so that all contributors can comment. Please don’t refer to room discussions as working group „decisions“.
>  
> With chair hat off, I believe there was never a formal consensus decision in TCPM to explicitly violate RFCs. And, anyway, the working group could change past decisions, at least prior to completing a WGLC. In this specific case, as individual contributor, I explicitly and very strongly disagree to move forward with an invalid IANA considerations section.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Michael
>  
>  
> Von: Bob Briscoe <mailto:in@bobbriscoe.net>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. November 2019 23:04
> An: Scharf, Michael <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>; Mirja Kuehlewind <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>; Richard Scheffenegger <mailto:rscheff@gmx.at>
> Betreff: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
>  
> Michael,
> 
> On 03/10/2019 12:31, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2019-9-10, at 13:50, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
>>> In my reading of RFC 2780 and RFC 8126, it would be a policy violation to allocate a bit in the main TCP header to an experiment without a proper standards track document allowing this experimentation. I am convinced that for bits in the main TCP header the IETF should just follow its own rules.
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> Lars
>> 
> 
> If asked this question in isolation, I would go for a quick RFC. But this is not in isolation.
> 
> The decision on what process to use has already been made - in Jul 2017 at IETF-99 (it was for the IESG to be asked to make a process exception). This is just a choice between processes. There's no difference to the technical outcome. Please can we just do it the way we already decided to.
> 
> Altho I'm a Brit, I am not a fan of people trying to re-run a referendum decision 'cos they didn't get what they wanted in the previous one.
> 
> 
> Background
> This issue was extensively discussed already. After a long offlist thread with the author of RFC8311 and others, a thread on tsvwg ran betw 3 to 12 Jul 17:
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/kUYwVJQXQfHztQzKtg7FfpSFSPM <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/kUYwVJQXQfHztQzKtg7FfpSFSPM>
> This thread ends by deferring to a meeting arranged at IETF-99 during AD Office Hours, at which the tcpm chairs were represented. 
> The outcome of that meeting was to expect the AccECN draft to rename bit 7 and assign it to itself, which would need the IESG to agree a process exception. That outcome was recorded on this slide for discussion in the subsequent tcpm WG meeting:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-tcpm-more-accurate-ecn-feedback-in-tcp-02#page=7 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-tcpm-more-accurate-ecn-feedback-in-tcp-02#page=7>
> The tcpm minutes here:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-tcpm-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-tcpm-00>
> record that "There is strong but not unanimous consensus in the room for assigning the codepoint."
> and the process proposal remained unchanged: that the IESG would be asked to make a process exception.
> 
> I didn't like that decision either, but this is just process. Can we move on please.
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/ <http://bobbriscoe.net/>_______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm