Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) [mailto:ananth@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:47 PM
>To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]; David Borman; Lars Eggert; 
>tcpm@ietf.org
>Cc: Alfred HÎnes; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal); randall@lakerest.net; 
>ext Joe Touch
>Subject: RE: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
>
>Wes, 
>
>> 
>> 
>> My personal opinion on the number of angels on the head of this
>> pin is that 3168 redefines bits that were formerly reserved.  Thus
>> it "updates" the description of those bits in 793 (they're no longer
>> reserved).  *Regardless* of the fact that 3168 is itself optional,
>> those bits are no longer available in the way 793 describes.  *That*
>> is why it has to "update" even though it's optional itself.
>> 
>> The tcpsecure document does not "update" in that sense, as it only
>> contains optional alternative state machine arcs; the arcs defined
>> in 793 are still able to be used in the way 793 describes ... they
>> aren't "updated", but there's now an alternative to them.
>
>Are you saying that we should construe that "alternate 
>processing" doesn't update the RFC?. Now, the update itself 
>can be optional. In other words, my point is that the current 
>meaning and usage of "updates" is to be used for any updates 
>to the RFC, irrespective of the fact it is minor, major or 
>optional. Agreed that, currently there is fine granularity in 
>describing an update i.e, "minor update, medium update or 
>conditinal update " etc., until such a granularity is 
>available, we should use the existing documented mechanisms. 
>This is the reason I think it would be expedient to seek the 
>advice of IESG in this matter.

My position is very simple:
What part of RFC 793 is no longer correct?  Which text is no
longer accurate in RFC 793?

With ECN, it's very clear, the answer is "the 2 reserved bits
are not reserved anymore".  With tcpsecure, the answer is also
very clear: "nothing".  You need to point to some part of 793
that is actually updated and not just alternatively defined,
IMO.  If 2581, 1323, and others don't update 793, then I don't
see how tcpsecure can have any valid claim to.

That's just my personal opinion, though.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm