Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Sat, 06 March 2010 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 0C55D28C0F0 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:27:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 3WmiCYwK1dQS for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B35F28C1E4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:27:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C066B661F; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:27:26 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [192.168.0.125] (61-128-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.128.61]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o26KRHnO020487; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:27:17 -0300
Message-ID: <4B92BAA7.90705@gont.com.ar>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:27:19 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
References: <4B917D5B.3060804@gont.com.ar> <932500B7-1DE3-4C82-8880-154C7D97291B@nokia.com> <4B928015.2090500@isi.edu> <4B92870A.2030608@gont.com.ar> <4B92924C.6090709@isi.edu> <4B929BA1.7060902@gont.com.ar> <4B929E58.6000007@isi.edu> <4B92B375.5060505@gont.com.ar> <4B92B677.80508@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B92B677.80508@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:27:25 -0300 (ART)
Cc: "tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=F6nes?= <ah@tr-sys.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry
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: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:27:23 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>>> Yes, a poll is useful. I have no idea who would "own" that process, or
>>> where that info would be maintained. 
>> Hence my suggestion of an Informational RFC that could be revised now
>> and then.
> 
> I think that writing RFCs - informational or not - that are known to be
> useless in a short timeframe isn't productive.

Agreed. However, I don't think this would be the case. Actually, it's
probably a waste of time of those listed in the IANA registry and those
needing the aforementioned information to rehash the same
questions/answers over and over again.



> The IETF is not an operations monitoring organization. However,
> informational docs are a path to that. We should NOT have this be a WG
> effort- at any level - unless it's in conjunction with a status change, IMO.

I don't necessarily share that view. But given the current state of
affairs, such a doc would most likely drive a status change.



>>>>> I'm not saying it's not useful, but I just don't know who should "own"
>>>>> or "endorse" this - the Internet doesn't have a compliance or deployment
>>>>> monitoring function AFAICT.
>>>> It doesn't look good to have all this options assigned that nobody (*)
>>>> knows what they have been used for (if they have ever been used on the
>>>> public Internet).
>>> I agree that IANA can have better info that can indicate what the option
>>> is, and that's easy AFAICT (gather the info, review it in TCPM and on
>> Would they really include a description if there's not document
>> describing the use of such options?
> 
> A few words at best. If not, perhaps it'd be useful to try to describe
> these options in an informational doc they can cite. 

That's the type of doc I was thinking of.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1