Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ...

William Allen Simpson <> Thu, 01 April 2010 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DD43A77E6 for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.004
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JlqhDtu+lBUN for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50C63A6CC7 for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33so1060189qyk.28 for <>; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 05:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t+3FrA2Xq0uEBsUkQpTkOboMLnwY2aRqYUvq2rNvnTY=; b=KCHX+jWN+nLc7uIe/u4ipKAFbv2QSiEyP+PSJqs/kVR/js2lJYDymBAZSmFb8b1dum 7HGv5mjBbTDEuaxhTmuPIjjq01wlzD9pWc13hzbeSEQpYO05/Y/oj2EeB/f/+spn44xI sPPDyZE8aHFwzFJXtGgvs1k5PAbyf1WGf9SzE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QHFyouezy+MRbfqK5L793gz5YO6MmkoENHEgxEJ8YAt+HIlm45PDJTe24HgDxVsRhb Xbm49L42E+c/0sxA/SyHxDZn3wY/mmdySBlurL7l6jNTq5tv4+qOkbTdLjCsfAqkvLjh NUxh06TWO6mCX6XGabFgIP7vgV2Kmp/FLoY3Y=
Received: by with SMTP id w17mr1287641qck.4.1270124134406; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 05:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Wastrel.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id 23sm7106395iwn.6.2010. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Apr 2010 05:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:15:31 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexander Zimmermann <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alfred HÎnes <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:27:06 -0000

On 4/1/10 4:36 AM, Alexander Zimmermann wrote:
>> Section 10 is pretty clear, in that RFC5690 is for limited experimentation only at this time and hence no separate option numbers will be assigned. Experimenters are supposed to use the normal TCP option numbers set aside for general experimentation (253/254) when playing with this proposal:
> this could be funny in Linux. You request ACKcc as TCP sender (option 253)
> and get Mr. Simpson's TCP Cookie Transactions back ;-)
Haven't seen that (RFC5690) so far, but there's somebody else using 253 and
another somebody using 254 in deployed code!  There are earlier messages on
this list about the culprits.

Last year's Linux code used the experimental numbers and followed the usual
procedures (you have to explicitly turn it on with a sysctl or sockopt),
but the conflicts were quickly obvious.  Don't turn it on outside your lab.

The only reason that I've bothered putting up the internet-draft is to get
official IANA assignments.  I'd sent in the reservation back in November,
but IANA refused to send it to IESG for approval without an internet-draft.
Unfortunately, IESG has been *terribly* slow to act.

Unlike certain commercial interests, I'm trying to avoid conflicts.  But
next time, I'll not bother.  IETF officialdom has become too ossified.