IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 05 May 2014 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD091A03E1 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 XiX86ICLrdFL for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD661A00D7 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id DAA6DC94BE; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:36:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 12:36:15 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <20140505163615.GB27034@verdi>
References: <CF8D8E25-E435-4199-8FD6-3F7066447292@iki.fi> <5363AF84.8090701@mti-systems.com> <5363B397.8090009@isi.edu> <CAO249yeyr5q21-=e6p5azwULOh1_jUsniZ6YPcDYd69av8MMYw@mail.gmail.com> <DCC98F94-EA74-4AAA-94AE-E399A405AF13@isi.edu> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D2CFE36@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <536548D7.5030802@uclouvain.be> <68C69A33-3733-48FB-AED6-E1DBC121C5B7@cs.ucl.ac.uk> <20140505144109.GQ44329@verdi> <5367B4FA.5000904@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5367B4FA.5000904@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/CRSrboxg8WWl5KTSEkw8XcpBfc8
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 May 2014 16:36:22 -0000

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> On 5/5/2014 7:41 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>>
>> (That's one of the reasons I prefer to have "Data Offset" be a clearly
>> invalid value whenever it is overridden by EDO: any middlebox will then
>> have fair warning that it is clueless.)
> 
> It had that warning when it saw the EDO option and decided that it could 
> ignore it quietly.

   This points out another failure of the TCP-Options design: for such
a basic building block, Options should have carried an indicator of
what to do with an unrecognized option -- e.g. ignore, drop the packet,
etc.

   Joe is right that "conservative in what you send" sort-of implies
that you don't pass on an option when you have no idea what it might
actually mean...

   (But that horse left the barn many years ago.)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email