IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits

Mike Kosek <Mike.Kosek@comsys.rwth-aachen.de> Wed, 27 November 2019 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Mike.Kosek@comsys.rwth-aachen.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 02CBA12098B for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:30:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 E-Fq-1jo19u2 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out-2.itc.rwth-aachen.de (mail-out-2.itc.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.5.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CCD3120871 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2BdGwBxst5d/xUN4ollgkaBSVVZay80kyKBbJtSCQEBAQEBAQEBAQgtAgEBhkIkOQUNAhABAQUBAQEBAQUEbYU4C4YTGTgBPkInBIM1gngBtQKFT4M8gUiBN4wVD4FMP4ERJwwDEYQOhweCLASuOQeBRGxylGQbgjAQh2uEEotijkiaPIEyOCGBWDMaJHkBgkJPERSGYI4ughyMBQGBDwEB
X-IPAS-Result: A2BdGwBxst5d/xUN4ollgkaBSVVZay80kyKBbJtSCQEBAQEBAQEBAQgtAgEBhkIkOQUNAhABAQUBAQEBAQUEbYU4C4YTGTgBPkInBIM1gngBtQKFT4M8gUiBN4wVD4FMP4ERJwwDEYQOhweCLASuOQeBRGxylGQbgjAQh2uEEotijkiaPIEyOCGBWDMaJHkBgkJPERSGYI4ughyMBQGBDwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,250,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="95751275"
Received: from lists.comsys.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.13.21]) by mail-in-2.itc.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2019 18:29:57 +0100
Received: from messenger-mbx.win.comsys.rwth-aachen.de (messenger-mbx.win.comsys.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.13.43]) by lists.comsys.rwth-aachen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E67C141AB5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:29:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MESSENGER-MBX.win.comsys.rwth-aachen.de (2a00:8a60:1014:0:c109:b55e:3715:5c2c) by messenger-mbx.win.comsys.rwth-aachen.de (2a00:8a60:1014:0:c109:b55e:3715:5c2c) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:29:56 +0100
Received: from MESSENGER-MBX.win.comsys.rwth-aachen.de ([fe80::c109:b55e:3715:5c2c]) by messenger-mbx.win.comsys.rwth-aachen.de ([fe80::c109:b55e:3715:5c2c%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:29:56 +0100
From: Mike Kosek <Mike.Kosek@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits
Thread-Index: AQHVpUhJOB/Pnwk6jkiMTcFgdsUcHg==
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:29:55 +0000
Message-ID: <6D121F63-82F5-4AFA-9593-DE22BAC7C153@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.226.12.218]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1A4396FA02A3B245A12A140ACC657FC4@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/s0LtY3Ce3QBBAkJ_DuSH5VDNFMY>
Subject: [tcpm] RFC793bis draft 14 Reserved Bits
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:30:25 -0000

Hi tcpm,

Sorry for bumping this, maybe it got overlooked during 106.

Catching up on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-14, I was wondering why the rsrvd bits are not explicitly stated as a formal MUST requirement: 

"Must be zero in generated segments and must be ignored in received segments, if corresponding future features are unimplemented by the sending or receiving host."

To my understanding, the current phrasing is up to interpretation, i.e., someone might opt to not implement it as stated due to the missing formal MUST - Please prove me wrong if I am missing something.

Best Regards,
Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email