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

"Scharf, Michael" <> Mon, 04 November 2019 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FB612086B for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:00:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 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_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHdXfrWsMlbn for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D52B120020 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51C625A19; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:00:10 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1572832810; bh=4QkS36t4Yl76cL2A4eHVyMlwhJEgDV1tnvibm60ulb4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qNTdHgHgsAKXb1EMvHcoUymIq/ne644klSyvlPbIb7blWPJMdU5j5fj6vPOlB+j78 d2GyYeVsZOIxtEMKqo8YSODAim0WLNYve7b8//PxPSoH8QZf05i5ujd96Q3jQ1BG4v Bi8TQqWduIuM0eKfZ0nVwc96qWW/RpWWiWwKObSg=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EBg64hGeeb8g; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:00:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:00:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:00:08 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <>
To: Bob Briscoe <>
CC: "" <>, Mirja Kuehlewind <>, Richard Scheffenegger <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
Thread-Index: AdVmj1xabgQDGeLVSb628zuZMsyT0ATPfeIABi860QAAClWnwg==
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 02:00:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4D9D3Brznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 02:00:17 -0000


With chair hat on: There was a discussion „in the room“ during IETF 99 and the outcome of a hum „in the room“ is documented in the minutes. In TCPM, consensus is confirmed on the list so that all contributors can comment. Please don’t refer to room discussions as working group „decisions“.

With chair hat off, I believe there was never a formal consensus decision in TCPM to explicitly violate RFCs. And, anyway, the working group could change past decisions, at least prior to completing a WGLC. In this specific case, as individual contributor, I explicitly and very strongly disagree to move forward with an invalid IANA considerations section.



Von: Bob Briscoe<>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. November 2019 23:04
An: Scharf, Michael<>
Cc:<>; Mirja Kuehlewind<>; Richard Scheffenegger<>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header


On 03/10/2019 12:31, Lars Eggert wrote:

On 2019-9-10, at 13:50, Scharf, Michael <><> wrote:

In my reading of RFC 2780 and RFC 8126, it would be a policy violation to allocate a bit in the main TCP header to an experiment without a proper standards track document allowing this experimentation. I am convinced that for bits in the main TCP header the IETF should just follow its own rules.



If asked this question in isolation, I would go for a quick RFC. But this is not in isolation.

The decision on what process to use has already been made - in Jul 2017 at IETF-99 (it was for the IESG to be asked to make a process exception). This is just a choice between processes. There's no difference to the technical outcome. Please can we just do it the way we already decided to.

Altho I'm a Brit, I am not a fan of people trying to re-run a referendum decision 'cos they didn't get what they wanted in the previous one.

This issue was extensively discussed already. After a long offlist thread with the author of RFC8311 and others, a thread on tsvwg ran betw 3 to 12 Jul 17:
This thread ends by deferring to a meeting arranged at IETF-99 during AD Office Hours, at which the tcpm chairs were represented.
The outcome of that meeting was to expect the AccECN draft to rename bit 7 and assign it to itself, which would need the IESG to agree a process exception. That outcome was recorded on this slide for discussion in the subsequent tcpm WG meeting:
The tcpm minutes here:
record that "There is strong but not unanimous consensus in the room for assigning the codepoint."
and the process proposal remained unchanged: that the IESG would be asked to make a process exception.

I didn't like that decision either, but this is just process. Can we move on please.


Bob Briscoe