Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

I think we are losing context here. ( At this stage in the document we don't need a rat-hole here) Alfred's point was :

" 
Furthermore, I once more advocate making clear in the document metadata what the document does, by adding to the heading:

    Updates: 793 (if approved)

Doing so will definitely help guide implementers to quickly locate the document once published as an RFC.
By WG consensus, the document is intended for Standards Track, and Sections 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2 clearly state that they update RFC 793; thus, this should be made visible at the metadata level as well.
"

The question is whether or not we should put that phrase in the front. 

-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU] 
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:28 AM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: Lars Eggert; tcpm@ietf.org; Alfred HÎnes; Mitesh Dalal 
> (mdalal); rrs@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> This has been the big issue with this doc from the beginning, 
> and I've been raising it from the beginning. Other docs 
> describe extensions to the protocol, but don't change the 
> base protocol. This one does, which has always been my 
> broadest concern.
> 
> It's a little odd to hear anyone think this is the first time 
> this was raised.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> > Lars,
> > 
> > Confused here. The TCP timestamps, SACK etc., are NOT 
> specified in RFC 793. Hence they don't update RFC 793 in any 
> sense, these are independent.
> > 
> > Now, RFC 2001 is a separate RFC by itself which was 
> obsoleted by RFC 2581. Yes, this is pretty close since this 
> talks about congestion control which is central to TCP, so 
> may be it updates some sections of RFC 793, I haven't taken a 
> close look.
> > 
> > Tcpsecure on the other hand does update the processing 
> rules of 793 ( pl see sections 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2), and hence 
> Alfred's point makes sense to me. 
> > FWIW, I never thought about this until Alfred brought this 
> point up, IMO, this is a good point.
> > 
> > -Anantha
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:26 AM
> > To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> > Cc: Alfred HÎnes; rrs@cisco.com; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal); 
> tcpm@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > (individual hat on)
> > 
> > On 2008-9-29, at 0:08, ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> >> In particular, regarding your observation of mentioning what the 
> >> document is doing, I agree that we should mention that it "updates 
> >> 793". I am hoping that nobody has any objection to this point.
> > 
> > since this document specifies an optional component to TCP, 
> I'd argue that it should not update RFC793. If you look at 
> the RFC Editor page, almost no other RFC updates RFC793, 
> because even widely-deployed extensions (timestamps, SACK, 
> etc.) are all optional. Even RFC2581 doesn't update RFC793.
> > 
> > Lars
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjhEAYACgkQE5f5cImnZrvhkgCfQMc0AP8JMGZqXgKhjNZ/LreG
> k7kAoM9M9JgpiYagxzrNjibrCR29fwCy
> =ELvI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm