Re: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168

I agree; it does not update 3168.

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 2:52 PM Scharf, Michael <
Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:

> > 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)
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>