From nobody Sun Dec 26 22:08:57 2021
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:
>=20
> In any case, the same RFC uses the normative "MAY" in several other =
places,=20
> so these are probably mistakes.
>=20
> For example,=20
>   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.
> =20
> So why=20
>   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 =E2=80=9CMAY=E2=80=9D, i.e., does the peer =
need to be prepared for this behavior?  The other two clearly are, while =
this seems like local matter.

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten