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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 14:06 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 C0A65120099 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:06:14 -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 aMvrNMZ5-2Gh for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:06:13 -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 0B4C51200E7 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:06:13 -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=44xiZtNP+4YV7Y4/ZJ4aG474hO0Gfyn9oezvINet7L0=; b=TGRlncZH+w2U8aeA/79Fs0idV 3IQsCqwziDI9cUaYNk/khPV9fW60H7OSPqZVqGgxfpSGwNlSFlHhT09t3rLrMg+0rRSc1qKAsJMJL 0E/7QyouxST//Ywc+pXBPGbqGOBG4HNqBQxDp4dH2xHDf7PH7XUVktOG0WwjTaQDTiGx+EuCyBQzs GsxMRKt/TS/hD7IWQPY43wCxfNIiGmqREAdMQBrVSrtDf4yLSHaC0ilDhmy14z2IlHaRSSZ3T7MZ8 4w6ktYRYtUVlyHF/qWsNT1LykWjJys3VXN/E2T2mYlyxcvhBnLySqoILLtwjIm/RRl0/iVY+ejBro xJOxQbqaQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:55615 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 1iRczf-0033V8-5x; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3014191C-FFB6-42B1-A764-6932096AADAB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DA42D@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:06:04 -0800
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Richard Scheffenegger <rscheff@gmx.at>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-Id: <D85BBF6E-52FB-47E6-A953-5DDE95A5649C@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> <B4985D00-0B05-497D-B469-5FE2000D3D28@strayalpha.com> <8B6C0F6F-2812-49C1-9DBF-070E00E1D391@eggert.org> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DA42D@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/I4KO0TioUKNsql7iXRPdZYgKpUA>
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 14:06:15 -0000

Slow but steady is the only way we should be modifying TCP. 

I don’t expect this “short PS” to get through faster than 793bis anyway. I.e., it’s a big leap from agreeing on process to agreeing on the solution.

Joe

> On Nov 4, 2019, at 12:11 AM, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
> 
> I believe that 793bis gets more and more mature. We will need further reviews in the next months. Given that this is a -bis for an Internet Standard, there are unknowns… The tentative plan is a WGLC early 2020.
>  
> A short PS focusing just on the assignment could perhaps be finished faster than 793bis. And that approach would also not change the scope of 793bis, i.e., 793bis would only include changes with IETF consensus.
>  
> Because of that, I would slightly prefer a short dedicated PS. But 793bis would also work for me. Any formally correct solution is better than a process violation.
>  
> Michael
>  
>  
> Von: Lars Eggert <mailto:lars@eggert.org>
> Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 08:55
> An: Joe Touch <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>
> Cc: Scharf, Michael <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Mirja Kühlewind <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>; tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>; Richard Scheffenegger <mailto:rscheff@gmx.at>; Bob Briscoe <mailto:in@bobbriscoe.net>
> Betreff: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
>  
> On 2019-11-4, at 5:08, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> If the timelines align, that would be the obvious place to stick that assignment, agreed.
> 
> But I'm not sure the timelines do align. 793bis seems to progress at a slow-but-steady pace (I'll point out it was supposed to be done two years ago....) but it seems likely that experiments want to happen sooner.
> 
> Lars
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>