IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-13.txt

Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi> Mon, 27 May 2013 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
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 CCA1821F8B60 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2MPRvBxLzuOn for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kirsi1.inet.fi (mta-out.inet.fi [195.156.147.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B254721F9676 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.70] (80.223.92.46) by kirsi1.inet.fi (8.5.140.03) (authenticated as saropa-1) id 5163F40203146070; Mon, 27 May 2013 21:10:29 +0300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <51A38F9F.4000407@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:10:35 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <39EDB63B-7FCB-43F5-9355-474D50976005@iki.fi>
References: <20130518155753.17946.96581.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAK6E8=d_LTZgnGAncdWDAi+7ebd3Lo5aevPeGG0=KSbBMeBhcg@mail.gmail.com> <519A8322.6030405@isi.edu> <26034_1369382276_519F1D83_26034_1735_1_519F1D68.604@uclouvain.be> <E220F4B0-EE27-431C-BCBE-0A0C01C8B0EF@iki.fi> <51A38F9F.4000407@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-13.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:10:50 -0000

On May 27, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> On 5/27/2013 3:19 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
> ...
>> MUST drop all (non-RST) segments without timestamp seems indeed
>> In the worst case this might discourage enabling timestamps at all,
>> if an implementation wants to be safe against middleboxes as
>> described.
> 
[...]
> That's why RSTs MUST NEVER require anything - even, IMO, a handshake (as per RFC 5691).

Fine, but my (and Olivier's) comment was about normal segments that do not carry RST flag. Why MUST those be dropped at the receiver if they are missing TSopt for some reason? This is a new requirement compared to earlier versions of the draft and RFC1323, and I don't think current implementations drop such segments either.

- Pasi

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email