Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

["Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <[e-mail]>]

 

> >Are you saying that we should construe that "alternate processing" 
> >doesn't update the RFC?. Now, the update itself can be optional. In 
> >other words, my point is that the current meaning and usage of 
> >"updates" is to be used for any updates to the RFC, 
> irrespective of the 
> >fact it is minor, major or optional. Agreed that, currently there is 
> >fine granularity in describing an update i.e, "minor update, medium 
> >update or conditinal update " etc., until such a granularity is 
> >available, we should use the existing documented mechanisms.
> >This is the reason I think it would be expedient to seek the 
> advice of 
> >IESG in this matter.
> 
> 
> My position is very simple:
> What part of RFC 793 is no longer correct?  Which text is no 
> longer accurate in RFC 793?
> 
> With ECN, it's very clear, the answer is "the 2 reserved bits 
> are not reserved anymore".  With tcpsecure, the answer is 
> also very clear: "nothing".  You need to point to some part 
> of 793 that is actually updated and not just alternatively 
> defined, IMO.  If 2581, 1323, and others don't update 793, 
> then I don't see how tcpsecure can have any valid claim to.

So, in other words, are we saying that only changes to TCP header is considered as an update and not the stuff that changes the semantics ? This is probably a general question w.r.t updates, nothing specific to 793 update.

"Alternatively defined" is also trying to change the RFC 793 semantics i.e, in the current case segment processing rules w.r.t RST, SYN and Data. 

FWIW, 1323 talks "TCP extensions for High performance" about window scaling ( a new TCP option), timestamps ( a new TCP option) and PAWS (which is possible only when you use timestamps), these don't update RFC 793 and just supplements it, IMO.

RFC 1122 standarided the TCP congestion control algorithms and not RFC 793. So if it all 2581 has to update something it had to be 1122 not 793.

> 
> That's just my personal opinion, though.

Sure, my opinion is similar but I am confused with the meaning and applicability of the term "updates". We need to have a consistent story. That is the reason I suggested seeking IESG advice in this matter.

-Anantha
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm