IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] 793bis: add SHOULD on other common options

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 10 December 2020 03:44 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 D89793A0982 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:44:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 r040vfS9tncv for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) (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 35B6C3A095F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id l7so1794682qvt.4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 19:44:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language; bh=rRav29q/SR9caDLCegbKL7ABeCd4qcKRd8OVAtvaf+o=; b=DWmEdnlXdH3+UZzk6BeWjr7+AACMD4mNm6oBellM4BV0GS6UtTIzH7xwuMzJWiaK07 N5DglnAANBLFXJid7oLIthfJSIwUWCVBueVQlWZxalsjZ6sfw6Tz26cHCtZr3TRuP4mX cgenCoKtgRetp3tN6eLyxy6N2vhOOenLhAd2nkIzGeN0tiOcDT+qBKUhQGP7Cq4wsJpW wxPhbgh8o8iaE224m/QG5j4HY+V58IzXGvOfwZsVwhSHY5kKgMhfq03Omv7OH+Tfm5nQ gKuq/vuXHhnyqSAHv2sO1flG/RT1RGLPoX8PU7GqyKU7KrNMHVWciQLqxmCvLgNs9wE0 UMzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language; bh=rRav29q/SR9caDLCegbKL7ABeCd4qcKRd8OVAtvaf+o=; b=gbBnZAK7QbYBvQb9LvRk5PnESKGMqUeGcZAVrO1jp3ECO1TS+/iTcrUXJsaAloGA8k QkfIYEItJ4iEByXYNJTnCJ3cRyf9aZ6juCZ2N8buN3Q2QvGOYvwXVCN9+kSV2XxUiRc+ O0GEMvt2/Hn0ugfqdLsCA5M350wMp6BbAwNPODiN568adXKWj4yaHzhHUSOZlcQ5VrZk A93qgC4aplkLhbdph/P5NemXc0NMpZT3IJW7RXyNTz5iH5TCKZDFFnhWFuX/5v2jxQyv EhIR7zro6BT5So8KNTwVwvWw6ka6KM5SjKQ+AIcu4Fmm1Cjta97EjFlKfhVozR4zBOCq GJvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531PLMmksIA4Lqo3YB72CTAznLay9xfoBzLPMcYnqOF5IFhPgjAN aotrwP2qPWhZyo5DZQTzOtsM/t/M/FbB3yM6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx3Oo8LAVOXDJCv1/gLgZdQFa0D9ZT3uiAkAIQoLfbYJKuSD3tfqVFJ5s4kyjcCdFKvaNt3HA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ab08:: with SMTP id h8mr6798837qvb.38.1607571889744; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 19:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (cpe-174-102-117-3.columbus.res.rr.com. [174.102.117.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z8sm2628874qti.22.2020.12.09.19.44.48 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Dec 2020 19:44:48 -0800 (PST)
To: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <1716cf53-f4a9-e23b-804c-1f1e08a82d9f@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 22:44:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EE1D58D2009382348CF9257F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/pSutsDnEC3Gh5DQ4Ym7af5QwSp4>
Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: add SHOULD on other common options
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, 10 Dec 2020 03:44:53 -0000

There's been a suggestion that we make a stronger statement on support 
for the common (but not required) options like SACK, Timestamp, and 
Window Scaling.

Current text just indicates that these are recommended:

         Other Common Options

         Additional RFCs define some other commonly used options that are
         recommended to implement.  These are the TCP Selective
         Acknowledgement (SACK) option [18  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-19#ref-18>][21], TCP Timestamp (TS)
         option [43  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-19#ref-43>], and TCP Window Scaling (WS) option [43  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-19#ref-43>].

I don't have any issues with appending a stronger statement something like:

    TCP implementations SHOULD support these options.

Would that suffice?  Are there objections or other suggestions on what 
exactly to say?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email