Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 06/10/2021 13:00, tom petch wrote:
> Does 793bis warrant an
> Updates 3168?
>
> It does change the format of the IANA registry as created by RFC3168 and so would seem an update.  I realise that the IANA registry will point to 793bis; I am unclear whether the revised registry will have any mention of RFC3168 not that it changes my view on Updates.
>
> Tom Petch
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

Thanks for asking, I looked at this.

RFC 3168 gave initial contents of the registry and stated:

    The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) included a 6-bit Reserved
    field defined inRFC 793  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>, reserved for future use, in bytes 13 and 14
    of the TCP header, as illustrated below.  The other six Control bits
    are defined separately byRFC 793  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>.


This could have been handled more elegantly, but  I think the RFC3168 
text remains correct, in that the base TCP spec (RFC793, or it's bis) 
define the 6 other bits.  To me, there is no change to the meaning of 
RFC3168 intended by 793bis, and I think updating a reference would not 
need to be flagged as an update.

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst

(as co-chair tsvwg).