[tcpm] 793bis: IP ID

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 0ACA11200A4 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 BaJRsNwZQN9h for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (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 532E5120271 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id q20so5642154qtp.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:04:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=0eo1IpI8J07aTXAHLKHmBnJ2U0vpWEXcCJ83uKda9Xw=; b=bsvQdt6fn1psQMm0R4mU43JFkQbvmlVu177M7CDrH3kVlXwg3F9T5zLrC24r9B8DZh B5+/+sgiSJ+nvGHW8CPQisrM3M7m4lKYcFADMSjCjNZV0y2Bh5lMEJsvY9SYBqZW1rcK XAFbhImzoEJJ4mIzzzR3RYeMUGYiKs/AxIfSRV6bR3Ur0c1Xl8RyF2SBIwwq/xqB2+L+ V7axrd18X9CMYEZOGdUD19pI6q4gqmCcPq6FeqvZb6+8NXweZhPe6P1OhaNp+cdwuRa3 fIfIEMf8pKw1Gc/1JnhWL7F2ejuqkHnwyTwTbbWgi6Mcg9injn233JEo2F8KBuiaFjNj ha7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=0eo1IpI8J07aTXAHLKHmBnJ2U0vpWEXcCJ83uKda9Xw=; b=aXnArhk5+hQCIPYHNbHHoGyEhvznYQoaL5zWkl6JD9KnQnHkCbMgu3m+6Y1CsJL0XB wGoLIyjZephE6Gj5n1RFqgaeRka/+itLTHLOVMU3rKaJb+MsA9pWcKNve6KJFSCj1bYt 7+clvyKt8fWOXwQvomF2HZOmLaAHtdPyI64iHILMCAeuiQ8ORfDMpXcLmx/Smdjkc0Tq q+liTRPgliCIN3f4NeulWs6RSNxwZPxR3EKcDo4HINHPvSCQxbfjD0JBI9BuOFGKUk13 Ru6pGA8emY7lkYq5H4DSG+3bQ2lUItdvdmK8G7GATPEviPATHI/HxM5phitCxSjS/eeQ uW/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUhGTqXmhlCNAMJezOqNaSoz8/aq8s8jZiq7AQdBmG7twPjiiLb OAI2W2Lj7AzfmTMxoGYthjlrRIK7rvc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWRLpfAXViKy6Xe5e+tduQyP/1OiD6k1BoMajiN1baIaqdBxbPB01IOgmyL9YXxM1czsgOzg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6982:: with SMTP id o2mr7930065qtq.299.1576775073314; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.100.1.112] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s20sm1851101qkg.131.2019.12.19.09.04.32 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:04:32 -0800 (PST)
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <5D669BDA.3000506@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <f4d75224-d7d0-002b-2bca-f93505d6c9d3@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:04:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/nn1Vz4RQSj1DAwcCVTJzRqVzKQQ>
Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID
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: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:04:37 -0000

While I think Gorry's comment below is pretty much correct, this is 
direct from RFC 1122's material on TCP.  I'm proposing not to change 
anything about this at the moment, since I don't think any harm is done 
by saying this.

On 8/28/2019 11:39 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Section 3.8.1
> OLD:
>    If a retransmitted packet is identical to the original packet (which
>    implies not only that the data boundaries have not changed, but also
>    that the window and acknowledgment fields of the header have not
>    changed), then the same IP Identification field MAY be used (see
>    Section 3.2.1.5 of RFC 1122) (MAY-4).
> - What is this MAY about? Is it about the IPv4 IPID field and is that 
> really
> important for a TCP spec?