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

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 04 November 2019 08:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 D43F41200E6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:11:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 0iq49AodMpm9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8FC51200D8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96DF25A1F; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:11:48 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1572855108; bh=6x6biZzyytyGe3zTkpJwwsDC8JNtBkLy6nRWVDaKcD8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=vI8GzRmC0L+snl6Mwix6w4u3kzC8VrN1tI3lfyw+9dcT0K0xoVwvk1xjWoWFZqGBg skYa8aXb1k0xtgFvcgTlB1fvrmYy/N9Jk6IwioDKpq8aqw6Szv/duz4ozZozSihz/P ZXs2UNTQ8EfKEuCYkJwY5Slq622S9S4ekBq19t2E=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9bcHLpSygP3; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:11:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:11:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.61]) by rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:11:47 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
CC: =?Windows-1252?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Richard Scheffenegger <rscheff@gmx.at>, "Bob Briscoe" <in@bobbriscoe.net>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
Thread-Index: AdVmj1xabgQDGeLVSb628zuZMsyT0ATPfeIABi860QAAClWnwgAAS00AAAoDAAAAAqxcwg==
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:11:46 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DA42D@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D437915@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <13123FDD-D69C-4D67-9F1B-B9B27FB6A234@eggert.org> <7c24fae0-36d1-30a1-88a8-c93c65116595@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4D9D3B@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <B4985D00-0B05-497D-B469-5FE2000D3D28@strayalpha.com>, <8B6C0F6F-2812-49C1-9DBF-070E00E1D391@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <8B6C0F6F-2812-49C1-9DBF-070E00E1D391@eggert.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DA42Drznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/na6RYwIknOk4Tt3R9RmVxvra2yo>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header
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, 04 Nov 2019 08:11:53 -0000

I believe that 793bis gets more and more mature. We will need further reviews in the next months. Given that this is a -bis for an Internet Standard, there are unknowns… The tentative plan is a WGLC early 2020.



A short PS focusing just on the assignment could perhaps be finished faster than 793bis. And that approach would also not change the scope of 793bis, i.e., 793bis would only include changes with IETF consensus.



Because of that, I would slightly prefer a short dedicated PS. But 793bis would also work for me. Any formally correct solution is better than a process violation.



Michael





Von: Lars Eggert<mailto:lars@eggert.org>
Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 08:55
An: Joe Touch<mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Mirja Kühlewind<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>; tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>; Richard Scheffenegger<mailto:rscheff@gmx.at>; Bob Briscoe<mailto:in@bobbriscoe.net>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] On allocating reserved bits in the TCP header



On 2019-11-4, at 5:08, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> Why do we need this process exception?
>
> We have 793bis in process. If we need to assign a bit in the header - to any specific use or as experimental - that seems like the appropriate venue in which to do so.

If the timelines align, that would be the obvious place to stick that assignment, agreed.

But I'm not sure the timelines do align. 793bis seems to progress at a slow-but-steady pace (I'll point out it was supposed to be done two years ago...) but it seems likely that experiments want to happen sooner.

Lars