Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

On 03/10/2019 12:31, Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2019-9-10, at 13:50, Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> In my reading of RFC 2780 and RFC 8126, it would be a policy violation to allocate a bit in the main TCP header to an experiment without a proper standards track document allowing this experimentation. I am convinced that for bits in the main TCP header the IETF should just follow its own rules.
> Agreed.
>
> Lars
>

If asked this question in isolation, I would go for a quick RFC. But 
this is not in isolation.

The decision on what process to use has already been made - in Jul 2017 
at IETF-99 (it was for the IESG to be asked to make a process 
exception). This is just a choice between processes. There's no 
difference to the technical outcome. Please can we just do it the way we 
already decided to.

Altho I'm a Brit, I am not a fan of people trying to re-run a referendum 
decision 'cos they didn't get what they wanted in the previous one.


Background
This issue was extensively discussed already. After a long offlist 
thread with the author of RFC8311 and others, a thread on tsvwg ran betw 
3 to 12 Jul 17:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/kUYwVJQXQfHztQzKtg7FfpSFSPM
This thread ends by deferring to a meeting arranged at IETF-99 during AD 
Office Hours, at which the tcpm chairs were represented.
The outcome of that meeting was to expect the AccECN draft to rename bit 
7 and assign it to itself, which would need the IESG to agree a process 
exception. That outcome was recorded on this slide for discussion in the 
subsequent tcpm WG meeting:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-tcpm-more-accurate-ecn-feedback-in-tcp-02#page=7
The tcpm minutes here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-tcpm-00
record that "There is strong but not unanimous consensus in the room for 
assigning the codepoint."
and the process proposal remained unchanged: that the IESG would be 
asked to make a process exception.

I didn't like that decision either, but this is just process. Can we 
move on please.


Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/