Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 07 October 2021 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 4F1933A101B for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 IACNLWwsTvoA for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 06:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 255213A00B0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 06:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id c7so5835723qka.2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 06:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nXDETlK/XSO7rvLuZ5IGsxb99pzLAy+Y+sRKOSDfvLg=; b=O2zkmSVv2lhIxs3crqtW5wEw11L2ms1Q9WVBYqI5PyFbeY9tBRkY/nDzEUgGtkL5go OKCR023wgzFFK752E6uE2zLwfVahbtBn1CnwLU7u/TxWK7P29r3UV/zTXm52Rh0KE22h 9rrYfNTzPbyORI+gUfird2gYhxLYgM3mZcRWynLCCnOz7IkH5nuNXi2I2XcQpn4+DFug b2ZSn2KyJCq6GQUS7xq4q3lpc3m1d9brkp4DyHGW27t5jRtbCKYMTOAxEAL6Vf2o/e3Y /oEERTgSbMgvSS7P5i9cTNChAVKF5NXI8DfKvEjHq3e/cN6ugVPFKt3forjg51Y4Qa8q dFaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nXDETlK/XSO7rvLuZ5IGsxb99pzLAy+Y+sRKOSDfvLg=; b=pLJvLYA4ptkWQ2dpvGNbqBd9DBaxh3nuY8kSc6AM5zCg59xsQodCL8Ca+J6zg2YZ0H 2zXLXRAjpTS76hBGgGCuw14mS//wg9lNCek5zuzcYlJryziiEe4qUREliRXMwM60fCqz AWsyldfLcBM196+q5bVZC12uXAL6pwr8hssaadkLIzkDd4PZzv7auJD3qZYeitx5t7ay patq7UAT9NqmOygLI7ZGFx1uAKrwk6rZ/KZ7DbzjwnBijqg2rUb7xt2a+g3aY2UGGY1k Jw8SBHfRMG0tBNhmmyHVUErMUpOR4Fw2pXU95rorm31PN0xKGkneY4Sv5kgadHauD292 Lz/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IqgkakZnYDdTxi9uXQGggRK4hH6Opy1V6Y7f3uOwnhkivPWS7 MpvKpimohFfCfyL6mbBs93Adjw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1aeuE29i3uOpdp7RtLxxAQjMuGEauVdogsUu3ESCxv7TGT2fFdmV6nPvsbJsGMqAJYu/kgA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4c5:: with SMTP id 188mr3234104qke.291.1633611691595; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 06:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.114] (069-135-001-122.biz.spectrum.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y27sm10734022qkj.64.2021.10.07.06.01.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Oct 2021 06:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <313453f9-46aa-b880-03c9-280a10a53faf@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:01:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <162611569026.7615.3785325543750944369@ietfa.amsl.com> <9f310fe4-1e50-4a94-5ac2-c3eeac4feba6@mti-systems.com> <AM6PR07MB55445F83DE91AF1B59AE98C9A2B09@AM6PR07MB5544.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87dd71cd-64b0-5a91-9537-cbe5e2404274@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <87dd71cd-64b0-5a91-9537-cbe5e2404274@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/LGzCDRBz-iPEHwy9LoAD2eF5SZQ>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168
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: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:01:37 -0000

On 10/7/2021 3:55 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> 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.

I pretty much agree with this, and further would say that I can't think 
of either anything in 793bis that alters technical material from 3168 
nor any reason why someone implementing 3168 should be additionally 
pointed at 793bis, so I don't think it needs to update 3168.