IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-18

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Sat, 24 October 2020 08:49 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 3A45E3A0B32 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 01:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Z6_TurVjvGm6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 01:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
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 F0FA93A0AEE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 01:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839AF25A27; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:48:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1603529339; bh=OFxhzujUIO7KlKpTZHlKlwWWfE0yok6byC4wzjNVUio=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MkaxnMEv3M8YUpwvrbI88PENvng82q0Fj22m39GjityoDQy5tLxk/wITsQtWTzN/A 9E8si9XlsMZ2LK2/B5HikJG0ZeUi0W9UYHqy5G8fS+cZmBTYa/d590TrVM2mEpNwaY kqRwbt+TpOx0xIiy1tnhL0bxPLp6QNCeXbnwp3bQ=
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 VUc45PLOeOxX; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:48:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8201.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:48:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:48:58 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.006; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:48:58 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Matt Olson <maolson@microsoft.com>, Yi Huang <huanyi@microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] WGLC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-18
Thread-Index: AdajXxk8uequbu29QB+n5DRBKHdcewAAci5QAYKou4AAHSTecA==
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 08:48:58 +0000
Message-ID: <73083c48b3ed4285a79f711034c3b2d8@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <CH2PR00MB072885B6E3337415A0F4EFB1B6031@CH2PR00MB0728.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CH2PR00MB0728DD8CB50540C41DE83D0FB6031@CH2PR00MB0728.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <8e59b58f-badd-2aac-fe2e-d40a9c78cc94@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <8e59b58f-badd-2aac-fe2e-d40a9c78cc94@mti-systems.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.248]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73083c48b3ed4285a79f711034c3b2d8hsesslingende_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/oAY1-HwTG9Z9xE5Gt8Zui9UsXgA>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-18
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: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 08:49:04 -0000

Regarding...

>> Section 3.7.3
 >>
>> "However, the values of R1 and R2 may be different for SYN
>>            and data segments.  In particular, R2 for a SYN segment MUST
>>            be set large enough to provide retransmission of the segment
>>            for at least 3 minutes.  The application can close the
>>            connection (i.e., give up on the open attempt) sooner, of
>>            course.
>> "
>> The MUST here is onerous for what is an ancient timeout value which modern implementations don't adhere to. Recommend changing this to a SHOULD.
>
> While I agree, I think this will require some greater working group discussion.  If the group and chairs agree, I'm happy to do this.

This MUST is in RFC 1122, i.e., using SHOULD would be a modification to RFC 1122. If we change the wording, I think we need to clearly document that change, e.g. in Section 8, possibly with an explanation.

Personally (i.e., with no hat), I agree that this MUST could be changed to a SHOULD, if the change is properly documented.

I have also thought about other wordings to work around this capital letter MUST, but I haven't found a good alternative so far.

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email