IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-01.txt

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Thu, 17 February 2011 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.com>
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 C2F0A3A6CB8; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:35:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 cSl3B4TM5uSB; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7263A6C6A; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:35:37 -0800
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.2; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:35:37 -0800
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.204]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:35:36 -0800
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHLzdNVMx7/o2Ck7kOjqGI7Hk9lVJQFQ7TAgACoIYCAAApSsA==
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:35:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CEBCE3CF81D2D441B14B84256C3C46810BD9E5C2@TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20110216121501.9756.17896.idtracker@localhost> <CEBCE3CF81D2D441B14B84256C3C46810BD9E173@TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <11AE786E-F8C6-408E-9F1A-863BBFD0BC10@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <11AE786E-F8C6-408E-9F1A-863BBFD0BC10@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-01.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: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:35:11 -0000

I would suggest to leave 1623 alone for now. There may be a  rationale to downgrade it later -- or maybe not. In any case, that rationale is not that it defines unused TCP extensions, and thus it does not belong to the same batch.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:57 AM
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions; ops-dir@ietf.org; Scott O. Bradner
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-01.txt

Hi,

On 2011-2-17, at 9:00, Christian Huitema wrote:
> I note that the list of RFC includes RFC 1263, "TCP Extensions Considered Harmful." The purpose of the draft is to make some extensions historic. Since RFC 1263 does not define any particular extension, I don't see the point of including it. RFC 1263 is an informational RFC. It provides advice on protocol design, and that advice appears to be just as informational now as it was then. I don't see why we should reclassify it.

it provides advice on *TCP* protocol design going forward, but the community went the other way. I don't feel strongly about moving it to Historic or not, but someone suggested it (see below).

Scott Bradner brought this up during his ops-dir review as well:

> On 2011-2-11, at 4:24, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> I'm not sure why RFC 1263  "TCP Extensions Considered Harmful" should
>> be included in the list since it seems to me that message of the RFC
>> is still valid.  But if it is to be included it seems like the
>> "it is not used" general description does not apply to this RFC and some
>> specific text should be added to say why it should be made historic
> 
> good point. Someone (I can't remember who, might have been Craig Partridge) suggested to include RFC1263 in this list because it argues for an architectural approach which the subsequent TCP evolution with its myriad of options did not follow. (RFC4614 also contains text along those lines.)
> 
> I'm adding this text to my working copy:
> 
> <xref target="RFC1263"/> ("TCP Extensions Considered Harmful") is somewhat of a special case. Unlike the other RFCs made Historic by this memo, it does not specify a TCP option that failed to see deployment, but argued for a way to evolve TCP forward that the community did not choose to follow.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email