Re: [tcpm] Is ECN a valid TCP header flag?

[Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>]

> On 24 Sep, 2021, at 1:05 pm, t petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>  base tcp-flags;
>    identity cwr {
>    identity ecn {
>    identity urg {
>    identity ack {
>    identity psh {
>    identity rst {
>    identity syn {
>    identity fin {
> with descriptions and references.  My knowledge of this is limited but I suspect that the reference for 'ecn' should be RFC3168 and not RFC793 but then should it be 'ece' and not 'ecn'?  I suspect that a TCP expert might see rather more idiosyncrasies.

I agree, it should definitely be ECE and not ECN.  The abbreviation is for "Echo Congestion Experienced", where "Congestion Experienced" refers to a codepoint of the ECN field in the IP header.  RFC-3168 describes the ECE and CWR (Congestion Window Reduced) flags and how they must be used.

The remaining established TCP flags are named here with their usual and familiar abbreviations.  I don't see any cause for concern there.

There are several additional TCP flags, in an adjacent byte, which are reserved for future use - effectively "should be zero" at origin and "should be ignored" upon receipt.  One of them was, for example, historically defined as NS (Nonce Sum), and other uses may arise in future.  Are these flags accounted for in the model?

 - Jonathan Morton