IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24.txt

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 15 July 2021 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 4B0B73A11B0 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 xu_v4swCXs40 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F5633A11AE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id w1so5975378ilg.10 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PDIeuPViz30AuEPfBY3SFqhDgUm3+JPvxhpKG3iWwuA=; b=IvK1AKGIupbQe/ulav9CCYe9RFaNwH0KstnX9jXPK8ykOkFTjmIXoftaWgB3aTg+RG wwy2OEDY6EROPydUpA2eUzAc4pMgXzXiKVotnNNBK9PJDF04wG9bwl8s2uPzo8w+yc6R Z3QkHDgqKDIfiYDRm4e3Qy6k/V/Ry65C6wwdbYC1eOpfuTXHN4HvmtY+SfWgX5/Lm1WC wYPLiVPW4pW7unQlaFVRC6lNtrDEIH3E7tpyBA4dVOTRLmYnvFJgNf3eIRNJz0p+XtrP EpkU9G3oS8HTKcbuvAw1CdlXSv/eE5vMxFeHBhZ2gZAPst+uH33Dt3IBXJPxBzvvIzQN Sssg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PDIeuPViz30AuEPfBY3SFqhDgUm3+JPvxhpKG3iWwuA=; b=dkk2c6+Xmj4WesFXM6YEJGQH7gvGIlz+K//jpNICe2Xdp61dzdEGiaMItggQzuzF3b oUzrcHzF8xuRPXErwHTNYhj2GmCHq6jD1JW0pCvdsgGWhhjEZh18nQGW9xRL8IVM/u43 kcOwD0z9zfkd08MHHlA7gsiEyS8fzwuxZniG9kJmhY249vw0b/AV37afYQWXsI1TtKkP 0hbBeeYJvasY3q/lb4jpeiUSM5+U0PukjZwgMvWqaU6O4NppcMxvm5gmMWqtiuTaSy0d Wu98APLmkehkKOJIW0xX+IBm7ZEcNJpvUjrZSag9dQwOFimEHvWWX452742CFInWsbK4 f0uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wE30p86c2fn8g4viaiOgYAbdhxUFp+T3po6Z77/9NVFfonycf jEtnKGkAO93RQ0fIQxDGsZvlKNU94btoAqdCsRw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxCKWSAH3w0ad4T/2AG8EbKjrbFemKIQIuZ6rhMTMgGbkLRPhqNWGHVm2hmG5m5bxMpd5sokdCrwuDvsTHYBA8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:20eb:: with SMTP id q11mr3781888ilv.272.1626376551185; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162611569026.7615.3785325543750944369@ietfa.amsl.com> <9f310fe4-1e50-4a94-5ac2-c3eeac4feba6@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f310fe4-1e50-4a94-5ac2-c3eeac4feba6@mti-systems.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:15:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTihLNJEto_s=ZXNPx8XeD00LsfkhcPCs09bK_PDQ-iGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ac2d105c72e4c3f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/BBdpsv-u7DredSyR66tEGhxpzZ4>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24.txt
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: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 19:15:58 -0000

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:57 AM Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure if this completely satisfies Martin's comment, but for now, I
> added this sentence:
>
>   Note that because changes in the urgent pointer correspond
>    to data being written by a sending application, the urgent pointer
>    can not "recede" in the sequence space, but a TCP receiver should be
>    robust to invalid urgent pointer values.
>
>
I am completely satisfied with this text. IMO 793 does not explicitly
prohibit receding, but it is a bad idea so we should discourage it, while
being robust to receiving it given an *extremely* small chance that some
implementation somewhere is doing it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email