IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Exceeding value in MSS option?

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 21 October 2020 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 B8E2E3A1281 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.316
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 3Y0JIqv-gSQs for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 066E73A11A6 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=nslHlDtCijFuhhPTn/ovtH6eC4pxUTs0leqEkBySXo8=; b=jYZcjSEhYbc4fYTft5FNjPS+X9 i00/kXjbOMoKpNll91AUA1y+95c0e0xhPqBFynicLYLWCam/TjOIY30RUbWGl2HuPuBpD2qPqiIMW /K/LKYIMHP4usjbyKsxQcMI+uDea7uUuJOhnEx4SnSQuspiKuLLHgnradbBWyEyfV5bRp5ykLcIGk 1PQm7LjHtUfgpG7XPrl/2vBnmIcJDy3pFmKwQjKN1HlHks/1jeaodkcQcA9LNJJYCMB1UgZzzsCbe n8I2pryGUVGmIQFNRMi0lQ1UJmUcFA2fmG74Zfu0WFtxq3xF8OmHw8cInK9IIrAsjEHl6teOGpiT3 XKaTTRJg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50576 helo=[192.168.1.16]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1kVHiB-000491-T3; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:15:48 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1565C797-C066-41E9-8449-E39254AD1F18"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxTfWwOzgVQgPnzLBB1vzAYux9EkGghNOAk8JPv1tcM5Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:15:43 -0700
Cc: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Markku Kojo <kojo@cs.helsinki.fi>
Message-Id: <3D61EB13-B999-46A0-B525-1A4B053DB300@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAM4esxTfWwOzgVQgPnzLBB1vzAYux9EkGghNOAk8JPv1tcM5Ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A8395)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/T2gtfD_Yb-MsB3Wyr4iur4cNOm0>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Exceeding value in MSS option?
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, 21 Oct 2020 17:15:55 -0000

IMO let 6691 speak to that. Ie, as explained in 6691

> On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> OTOH 1122 is a standard and 6691 is Informational.
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:40 AM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> FWIW - when citing requirements established elsewhere, IMO it’s always better to NOT repeat it as a requirement elsewhere. It makes updates very difficult.
>> 
>> I.e., avoid 2119 language when referring to an existing requirement and clearly indicate that this is a summary (“already a requirement”), e.g.:
>> 
>> ---
>> Note that it is already a requirement that TCP implementations consume payload space
>> instead of increasing datagram size when including IP or TCP options
>> in an IP packet to be sent [RFC6691].
>> --
>> 
>> FWIW - I would avoid citing 1122 because the entire issue is addressed definitely in 6691.
>> 
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email