IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Fri, 12 February 2010 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C572428C204 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:32:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tm5x7wjHZmlA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7401B28C281 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:32:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79EF6B6B18; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:34:11 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (129-130-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.130.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1CLY5Z5026731; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:34:06 -0300
Message-ID: <4B75C94A.6030907@gont.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:34:02 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <5981EBEA-5F7B-422A-A094-5D2548F705EB@windriver.com> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DD6035B8@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5808DC645E@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5808DC645E@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:34:11 -0300 (ART)
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)" <ayourtch@cisco.com>, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:32:52 -0000

Hello, Anantha,

Thanks so much for your feedback. Comments inline....


> Why should we be even making this assertion : "new applications SHOULD
> NOT" employ urgent mechanism due to what is said in sec 3.4. The
> end-to-end semantics may get broken/altered due to many reasons and not
> just due to the middlebox fiddling with the URG flag/ptr. I guess my
> point is that why this document take pains in recommending something as
> a result of a middlebox behaviour. The best I have seen so far in
> documents with similar situation is to just mention that middlebox
> behaviour and leave it, do not make any recos based on the middlebox
> behaviour. 
> 
> Makes sense?

The recommendation is based on everything: both the different possible
semantics of the UP, and the fact that it's not reliable anymore (due to
middle-boxes).

Should we clarify this?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email