Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits
"Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Thu, 28 November 2019 02:44 UTC
Return-Path: <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
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 92CB11208C4 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Ps6MYvFIKWop for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1A1D1200E7 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id xAS2iYbD010084; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:44:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id xAS2iX3T010083; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:44:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 4bone)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <201911280244.xAS2iX3T010083@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <6D121F63-82F5-4AFA-9593-DE22BAC7C153@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
To: Mike Kosek <Mike.Kosek@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:44:33 -0800
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/TXNPj04G7jvWClLVRST5KGgtAVM>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits
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, 28 Nov 2019 02:44:40 -0000
> Hi tcpm, > > Sorry for bumping this, maybe it got overlooked during 106. > > Catching up on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-14, I was wondering why the rsrvd bits are not explicitly stated as a formal MUST requirement: > > "Must be zero in generated segments and must be ignored in received segments, if corresponding future features are unimplemented by the sending or receiving host." > > To my understanding, the current phrasing is up to interpretation, i.e., someone might opt to not implement it as stated due to the missing formal MUST - Please prove me wrong if I am missing something. I would even like to see it go further and add "they MUST be ignored by the network, and traverse the network unchanged." -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
- [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Mike Kosek
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Mike Kosek
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Mike Kosek
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits Joe Touch