Re: [tcpm] <SYN,FIN> in SYN-SENT (793bis)

tuexen@fh-muenster.de Mon, 07 June 2021 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.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 9850D3A39C9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 00:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 sUVOtuUgclQw for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 00:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 573F63A39C6 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 00:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:4008:ef91:c993:1666]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B108721E2809; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:00:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Message-Id: <C775B09A-304F-431E-8DEA-58CA9FDF8603@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1014A06F-42E0-42E6-B12A-DB27CA3000A9"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:00:54 +0200
In-Reply-To: <C40CBCAE-96DE-4858-BB43-562432B8F405@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Wes Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <8f501fee-4cd5-46be-5549-a66186f3ac5b@gmx.at> <F96CC7BF-7E5C-4FFE-8877-CEACCC798221@fh-muenster.de> <ef139638-994d-4413-2fe8-3188772e4738@mti-systems.com> <C40CBCAE-96DE-4858-BB43-562432B8F405@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/YkI0fUppv2NArj519JnCNyu_uh4>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] <SYN,FIN> in SYN-SENT (793bis)
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 07:01:10 -0000

> On 7. Jun 2021, at 06:50, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> Seemed conclusive to me; Michael’s response appeared to answer it from what I understand.
I agree. Just to be clear: My (individual) view is that there are no changes in RFC 793bis needed.
The TCP stack Richard is referring to now has a updated fix which is compliant to RFC 793bis.

Best regards
Michael
> 
>> On Jun 6, 2021, at 8:41 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm just noting that since this thread looked inconclusive, I haven't made any changes in 793bis in response.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm