Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168

["Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

> On 07/10/2021 12:39, t petch wrote:
> > On 07/10/2021 08:55, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2021 13:00, tom petch wrote:
> >>> Does 793bis warrant an
> >>> Updates 3168?
> >>>
> >>> It does change the format of the IANA registry as created by RFC3168
> >>> and so would seem an update.  I realise that the IANA registry will
> >>> point to 793bis; I am unclear whether the revised registry will have
> >>> any mention of RFC3168 not that it changes my view on Updates.
> >>>
> >>> Tom Petch
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tcpm mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >>
> >> Thanks for asking, I looked at this.
> >>
> >> RFC 3168 gave initial contents of the registry and stated:
> >>
> >>     The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) included a 6-bit Reserved
> >>     field defined inRFC 793
> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>, reserved for future use,
> >> in bytes 13 and 14
> >>     of the TCP header, as illustrated below.  The other six Control bits
> >>     are defined separately byRFC 793
> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Yeees, I was looking at the format where 'Bit' is updated to 'Bit
> > Offset' and 'Assignment Notes' is added.  An update?  Perhaps not.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Gorry Fairhurst
> >>
> >> (as co-chair tsvwg).
> >>
> Thanks for your quick reply. I defer to the Wes/TCPM chairs to say if
> this is needed. If it is, then please do liaise with TSVWG to ensure the
> update is consistent with the expectations of TSVWG.

The document is in IESG evaluation, i.e., if changes were needed, they would 
have to be decided by the IESG.

Having said this, the consensus here seems to be that nothing needs to change. 
So my proposal would be not to update 3168.

Michael
(as document sheperd)