IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis AD review

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 07 July 2021 05:25 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 8B81C3A0989; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 22:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 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, 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 KtVmfKUqaztG; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 22:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 A4DC83A098A; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 22:25:13 -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-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=+ofxRVBj+s/bqlSRo5heqedTOwHVFVtID3P3z7qkdtA=; b=Xh9PZpgH3TXTzz7/p7Z1zK++XR /NJXtvB8YArrRtXUDNhw465Z/VzRCPqS19uRtL8B843kbY6FfEDlo5G5nmsVr16eiFfRDdIUkwYt9 rXWreK4PyhH3M9JmLXyWj0Erd6dd2ww5X8wgDD1MGQyIQUuSM9X39R52GPriS4WoKe4dOx1hrAX1D pNw6XpGgm6sm193Lbf+wRjjUbZaia+opsox6JCSYb7VQkfjj5ok2EzJGJdQOrwYmdOGzSQqCWPKQS 5zl7lLS9oXVnuO6sqrOE2Y8niLoIHTAjOdXv6PsR4QqufQp1l8bGc5WGV46gWwiET0BAZbMY3fZ+V iMxpmFBA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:62658 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1m103Y-003eX3-5x; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 01:25:12 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9D0D47F5-DFA2-4EA0-9D13-3B3EB054FA60"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <59e1d10e-542c-3f1f-7098-4f1d8932da5b@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:25:04 -0700
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis.all@ietf.org, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <B23E865B-AA30-4A74-89E2-7CA3D06E5D38@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAM4esxQggOyqpO4RhE151En2mATce8jL0s4dt6CEeqEAqaXkQw@mail.gmail.com> <59e1d10e-542c-3f1f-7098-4f1d8932da5b@mti-systems.com>
To: Wes Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
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/U7k44ehcuEhdq198tZ9IoR5qksk>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] RFC793bis AD review
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, 07 Jul 2021 05:25:19 -0000

Hi, all,

> On Jun 30, 2021, at 2:50 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
>> (3.7.2) In the first paragraph it says
>> RFC 1122 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1122> recommends an IP-layer default
>>    effective MTU of less than or equal to 576 for destinations not
>>    directly connected
>> In the last it says
>> RFC 1191 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1191> discusses this implication of many older TCP
>>    implementations setting MSS to 536 for non-local destinations, rather
>>    than deriving it from the MTUs of connected interfaces as
>>    recommended.
>> Could we unify these comments in the same location? Implementers browsing the spec should see the old recommendation and its drawback in the same place.
> Good idea; I think we can.
> 
Two things that might be useful to include

- first, these are intended to refer to the same number; one is an IP MTU, the other a TCP MSS
- for the second, it’s useful to refer to RFC 6691 as well as to note that this value is for TCP over IPv4

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email