Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Thu, 07 October 2021 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 206A03A08FB for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 sV3NqJQC--9J for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03DF33A08F3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424F125A17; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 23:52:36 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1633643556; bh=zsGDOsbUKC3Ywbeedfgx+8Zelou71PXt5bqp8/KtIRY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NSG6YIqwc+mExpOYrccogBCUGF5mGSr+RQJeYGGhK+5Cdg1bO8MUpUdZiYVUZoHyQ 4daznfLfZqxDCVCQhS6IdwJ1tEt8hLy7S0cEaTxfkHup+CcbzmCalJkm82TR7NuHxf ftcWNrTiSprVZWLhE9wmAvjkxLR9/l/rnFUUO1iE=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I72TK0CHOwFM; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 23:52:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8202.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 23:52:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.14; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 23:52:33 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.014; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 23:52:33 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168
Thread-Index: AQHXuqnhl4UbQR//wES+/NYAIPLjwKvHCpKAgAA+iQCAAAGWgIAAyVZw
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 21:52:33 +0000
Message-ID: <fb8f30f0f6c74680aa38c68546081d88@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <162611569026.7615.3785325543750944369@ietfa.amsl.com> <9f310fe4-1e50-4a94-5ac2-c3eeac4feba6@mti-systems.com> <AM6PR07MB55445F83DE91AF1B59AE98C9A2B09@AM6PR07MB5544.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87dd71cd-64b0-5a91-9537-cbe5e2404274@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <615EDC6E.6050702@btconnect.com> <ba41f1c7-9d93-f882-d339-8f443e5ee031@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <ba41f1c7-9d93-f882-d339-8f443e5ee031@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.248]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01D7BBD6.654560C0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/TwsFE_1-yqHBo5XTxL-bF8FKquI>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168
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, 07 Oct 2021 21:52:44 -0000

> 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
> >>> tcpm@ietf.org
> >>> 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)