IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] A possible simplification for AccECN servers

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.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 734A112082F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 k5OM95t3J1Sz for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (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 C674B1200B9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id m6so24738864ljc.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lG4/6m1juzlgcPAZScs8X4IkcswDTjx8kpWwDma5HIE=; b=LkxokCYT2DCRj8g5LhoMNV8mxK37oyk2Wqt5XR+LOClFcK9kM8MrUHhSfkFNWggxB1 +y6d4Lm49s2EcOkiH58jpfgWG7WZp43DQysHjMN1XZDnzkbi1ITDEClva5zCpMG/cTUu wMkiHeq7WtvNRfRFgasRVU5yZSf3bTQjJ9Eo5zxj8Ov7SNBfWpz5xBBpJmiueCMZI5aR r/WBFi+Jg+Dx53k7OmZXoyJRTzbnVEbi3+eVvJeXiNxUIOH/oOT0iSPR+rox6Ic/qe9U xB2hbH+ErIeeFazJNFSnqp6YukDqQUjvRWhPEpUsUMswbK6DfNjfsf1hSTBQlZTayJ5S ooBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lG4/6m1juzlgcPAZScs8X4IkcswDTjx8kpWwDma5HIE=; b=L6T73qnIBEQjofMZSatCLMK8WYevNAX+fGu8MHUTN3hxTDDwwmbeXdHAXs2EvMbxOV OFe9Z6reozUFD4A7JAvQYxa6vrw92chwhQZcafvxiUpHHHCxpNhSacRBU2JOEo2UpLRi 6m1bnieK03r0ARxOcLADXRFafwQK+c6Ff6S4OxzZmBbNMRXMiNayXTx4n7wWbzxA1X5c rITc/cOHvKJisetLR8wLZjpZ4Xp/5lbhU7y1eluTGIvWTYDHemED2U8ozPhzxZkyeszM Dv9SpVl8nWSgswfG+VqXVRKF9EhCLgKT2z2p6o+xJLpj0C9HgaDsWpJZnkvof3K3dkTB /Svg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwE48YOG5VZWdWgElxiaX1fopLhfzFyGTMu0FSDSUmHbmhfNhH tpVbQeherEgaauyec9c1ZIk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzbeRKouYr5bF85Wt+AqwjVchMmNGhD1HNBlibq5BEAHi6L4OMMFK9tITf1URFfULoWh0L+2w==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7005:: with SMTP id l5mr2710981ljc.230.1576080865108; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-229-102-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.229.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w16sm1488840lfc.1.2019.12.11.08.14.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH56bmDWT7XoJY_THqgeJ-hiyXHNUtZ+bCfi2cNpt6kW9fqzoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:14:22 +0200
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Richard Scheffenegger <rscheff@gmx.at>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1DF1AF6B-EEF9-4CE8-AEBC-553C0F9E0E90@gmail.com>
References: <d35618ee-c0dc-44ee-9e22-50bdabbe026c@bobbriscoe.net> <732C4247-BC55-4719-A399-711689CB379A@kuehlewind.net> <256E6F9D-607A-4A9D-9505-933FC4EC28FC@gmail.com> <333DA677-0930-45B2-AC65-05852FC46955@kuehlewind.net> <A76315DB-B3B4-45A4-A8CA-5F4701EB4085@gmail.com> <F90043A1-87F5-4DD1-BB11-AE8D2F3C5A7E@kuehlewind.net> <86dd14dc-0c24-d604-ea57-b280407a1a09@bobbriscoe.net> <CCA9AFF7-6EBB-4DB0-B851-7806B8E96871@kuehlewind.net> <74fe4c25-6ea2-ac5e-e59e-51acfd54be5f@bobbriscoe.net> <F74FD1C5-DB49-45FB-8AF8-73CCE1A125EC@kuehlewind.net> <6ea44dd6-e830-2bce-39a2-d0efd7a90b2e@bobbriscoe.net> <CAH56bmDWT7XoJY_THqgeJ-hiyXHNUtZ+bCfi2cNpt6kW9fqzoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Mathis <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/LxPK9_bThtXerWTGUVRV2ivotQI>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] A possible simplification for AccECN servers
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:14:28 -0000

> On 11 Dec, 2019, at 5:43 pm, Matt Mathis <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> As a general strategy I would strongly prefer to wrap all 3168 compatibility language in SHOULDS, perhaps with a meta comment that this language will all be obsolete at some point in the future.   

I definitely object to the latter, not least because it's logically inconsistent with the handshake protocol.  Any AccECN client MUST be prepared to have their AccECN-requesting SYN interpreted as an RFC-3168 SYN by an RFC-3168 server, which will reply with an RFC-3168 SYN-ACK and thereby put the whole connection in RFC-3168 mode.

Therefore, RFC-3168 clients will always be at least as prevalent as AccECN clients, *even if* AccECN servers for some unfathomable reason decide to drop RFC-3168 support.  I maintain that the advantage to doing so is negligible in the most favourable interpretation.

Therefore, you *cannot* assume in AccECN specifications that RFC-3168 will "eventually" go away.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email