Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7323 (6798)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 27 December 2021 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 80FBB3A0420 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 22:08:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 jSxyELsf94WJ for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 22:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54B7C3A0417 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 22:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a436.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JMnKk0CcrzDCcJ; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 07:08:41 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAE8H3+C20vdT0ei4SU2zWtYunvi_TgzGwx97Q9QnrkzoT5hUqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 07:08:41 +0100
Cc: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, rs@netapp.com, tcpm@ietf.org, braden@isi.edu, vanj@google.com, david.borman@quantum.com
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 662278120.708691-ed63be726c6c4c1bdc908279f7ebbdea
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DDBA952-F80F-4A40-B387-7CB975FA0AC2@tzi.org>
References: <20211226085938.97471F0F1F@rfc-editor.org> <61C84CAD.8040300@btconnect.com> <5152DC2D-1E40-4011-94D7-EE7CBB851C6E@tzi.org> <CAE8H3+C20vdT0ei4SU2zWtYunvi_TgzGwx97Q9QnrkzoT5hUqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yaakov Stein <yaakovjstein@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/gPmUNNeWgEeW5UYHKRaasWu9vt8>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7323 (6798)
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, 27 Dec 2021 06:08:56 -0000

> On 2021-12-27, at 06:16, Yaakov Stein <yaakovjstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In any case, the same RFC uses the normative "MAY" in several other places, 
> so these are probably mistakes.
> 
> For example, 
>   The three-byte Window Scale option MAY be sent in a <SYN> segment by a TCP.
> and
>   This option MAY be sent in an initial <SYN> segment.
>  
> So why 
>   A random offset may be added to the timestamp clock on a per-connection basis.
> ?
> Is this may to be considered weaker than the other two?

Is this an interoperability “MAY”, i.e., does the peer need to be prepared for this behavior?  The other two clearly are, while this seems like local matter.

Grüße, Carsten