From nobody Mon Dec 27 08:47:15 2021
Return-Path: <yaakovjstein@gmail.com>
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 7603D3A08A0
 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 23:34:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
 header.d=gmail.com
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 Smho6-nsx2Ka for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Sun, 26 Dec 2021 23:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80B23A089F
 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 23:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id m1so13030331pfk.8
 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2021 23:34:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; 
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=7Ds6HkZW5uEymIo6ftmLqcZ3NQOzydxbarm/4W1h6s0=;
 b=EafdONUFad+tH0YRDzh4T+NptH9bger84vbt7RE+VmoZrE74mIBN1T1C4oL0SGIpHK
 TDMFXGmVoKY6Q2v1G7oDNOy65gRKqX0ealQfKQXuVh9qth9AUipzD5hkMSXAHDd+yFzv
 y/Z+UJg+DofwiauuXKouvvhgMzOMypV8lgttzWtUF+y9DWUjTUEd3dN8Q7i7iL1c+P3P
 cCsZhymBTF+FAg2l3QjN5niIdxUcAcm3hmtUrYcTsqtz9N5alTIy+hel/x9+JsQTQa7f
 HuwG2k9V+D0JeMcyaeKhJ+xVmEMs1SlKfoTwIcc8h2XAkNCGQpG+M4qAv3IPIzhsYZ54
 3+bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=7Ds6HkZW5uEymIo6ftmLqcZ3NQOzydxbarm/4W1h6s0=;
 b=jSV3P9tXoitxW7zxhGTm6egHTFOVO+N3AK+pg+6U6WVCWO98LFy2vgC79RhJVTSLA+
 ZGZSiz6u2vyWm4fhKBtYwnE5dENKmoPBuCN9PNUeDkNtcYv7cHXs2R550a1I0NCRM9RU
 nOMBT39zhMK0xhkgu8k0VTUG5lPX5u8+eDl2BaAGQAi4KXEqH1bNUuFNLGOZ66XIYckL
 LhGJXDrFQWIgTcE9jI4a7/lJMm1l837Ih2CHyiWNqObtyj1X2s6frH4NGwYmJ+yS+VW9
 Czqz2oVn8BJpOR52gfWB15ztCVP33lb9aMBRIT5xHmGjy/CWasiESY7PnoXLquoezdh0
 2e9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531zpa+bnOUQSDg9/WuFMR9M3n82oGyQY7jm10OBK5Dn0aD4FDU+
 MHCoJbYtcg8KaQtUEXqqgTldU7eboMQeEiBtAoU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPiELOVM7jcQDjDhMj2eeZzCyn/znas0RYJ7DAa2XcHGUNCk9ok9egrhB0xEadcYlSQ/hFPqiGCK6thVfnZ+U=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:920b:: with SMTP id o11mr14990042pgd.314.1640590456179; 
 Sun, 26 Dec 2021 23:34:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211226085938.97471F0F1F@rfc-editor.org>
 <61C84CAD.8040300@btconnect.com>
 <5152DC2D-1E40-4011-94D7-EE7CBB851C6E@tzi.org>
 <CAE8H3+C20vdT0ei4SU2zWtYunvi_TgzGwx97Q9QnrkzoT5hUqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6DDBA952-F80F-4A40-B387-7CB975FA0AC2@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6DDBA952-F80F-4A40-B387-7CB975FA0AC2@tzi.org>
From: Yaakov Stein <yaakovjstein@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 09:34:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE8H3+A7eFxHD5E2on2Cf=U78so8Bb-V7ayBoDo-zuUKXuVdbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>,
 RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, rs@netapp.com, 
 tcpm@ietf.org, braden@isi.edu, Van Jacobson <vanj@google.com>,
 david.borman@quantum.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005cd5ba05d41bbb43"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/kmDY8GJaBQso6L_KYTs6ARV72WE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 08:47:07 -0800
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 07:34:23 -0000

--0000000000005cd5ba05d41bbb43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

None of the three cases I called out will cause interop problems, but they
open potential security or privacy issues.

But the lack of interop concerns did not dictate capitalization in other
cases, such as

  A TSecr value received in a segment MAY be used to update
  the averaged RTT measurement

which is a purely local matter.


Y(J)S


On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 8:08 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> > 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 =E2=80=9CMAY=E2=80=9D, i.e., does the peer ne=
ed to be prepared
> for this behavior?  The other two clearly are, while this seems like loca=
l
> matter.
>
> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten
>
>
>

--0000000000005cd5ba05d41bbb43
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">None of the three cases I called out will=
 cause interop problems, but they open potential security or privacy issues=
.<div><br></div><div>But the lack of interop concerns did not dictate capit=
alization=C2=A0in other cases, such as=C2=A0</div><div><pre class=3D"gmail-=
newpage" style=3D"font-size:13.3333px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;brea=
k-before:page;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><pre class=3D"gmail-newpage" style=3D"font-=
size:13.3333px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;break-before:page">  A TSec=
r value received in a segment MAY be used to update
  the averaged RTT measurement </pre><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);fon=
t-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;white-space:normal">whi=
ch is a purely local matter.</span></pre><pre class=3D"gmail-newpage" style=
=3D"font-size:13.3333px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;break-before:page;=
color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helv=
etica,sans-serif;font-size:small;white-space:normal"><br></span></pre><pre =
class=3D"gmail-newpage" style=3D"font-size:13.3333px;margin-top:0px;margin-=
bottom:0px;break-before:page;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,=
34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;white-space:n=
ormal">Y(J)S</span></pre></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div di=
r=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 8:08 AM Carsten Borm=
ann &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:cabo@tzi.org">cabo@tzi.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">&gt; On 2021-12-27, at =
06:16, Yaakov Stein &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:yaakovjstein@gmail.com" target=3D=
"_blank">yaakovjstein@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; In any case, the same RFC uses the normative &quot;MAY&quot; in severa=
l other places, <br>
&gt; so these are probably mistakes.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; For example, <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0The three-byte Window Scale option MAY be sent in a &lt;SY=
N&gt; segment by a TCP.<br>
&gt; and<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0This option MAY be sent in an initial &lt;SYN&gt; segment.=
<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 <br>
&gt; So why <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0A random offset may be added to the timestamp clock on a p=
er-connection basis.<br>
&gt; ?<br>
&gt; Is this may to be considered weaker than the other two?<br>
<br>
Is this an interoperability =E2=80=9CMAY=E2=80=9D, i.e., does the peer need=
 to be prepared for this behavior?=C2=A0 The other two clearly are, while t=
his seems like local matter.<br>
<br>
Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000005cd5ba05d41bbb43--

