Re: [tcpm] Linux doesn’t implement RFC3465

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 552EA3A45DB for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 cFPchqG8C5cT for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 20DBC3A45D9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id e186so9673642iof.12 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T5yVBa57gqT8f4zIJ1csMIHD4oGRpIcCGyRRl3rMVd4=; b=SWMC4yocE6FxBuEfg1hr4/fNZxZyBNxUGN/uIwLYUD//zkUAW6iyIpYmTExypqwHZ4 wzKH2tUsaraJIHA3chTFouRjpqgsYl2anzrCmBzpDugA2kCVbrqu3QkgaQDd2xqPK3hR Iz6Pv2fhki/e3jWRWdF+uY1KEpLQFiDdG9+bibwgH4kR/PXjVhEeGxgCf49m7L3kxVIq rQkMMvFUbMntQjGb1VH0ljaEnjnYKuyrnYprg73PnwfXxzXGKQhpYAN42OGSnMgKkMre K/2IzvRLC5HQ1KpNWPCHDpnertYlkU9eNmOmAa2ex/Ekdf76K3znjfSLdDQngWQRgBYX pjwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=T5yVBa57gqT8f4zIJ1csMIHD4oGRpIcCGyRRl3rMVd4=; b=sTUjnVnXqzj8aS99wUceDYgAhHdKCsGOED95kyBTcY4z9jUxXvQ6t38MCwI1VhDqO1 i19hg1XxcupE1h7/Zl7qfepixcY60+M9gCBpTdVu72XVb/f+/7V/6CaNyp8n7koSDE2E AvEcFX49Y9ysKrYEuWAz9eLHWue3gm+lW9g9f5WodqV8YSJEjPP8OSkjy4vMyVsFO9Ed ltKHwzETNQEp7NHPWwm1IF3s6E4ur1QUwwEM6IUstWo6dlRK625eC0zkrHH23ME/Q+A0 1b98UkuN0voqeBcGUxDXCJ8q0uwQEhlGaQgky4Kdfls0grwaR2nvoydcCXBuwVFsS0Xr NzNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CH1BcbraP7zdwJvUvKPLHaTdLm1Yndizg4OcSBePiIEbvQZUu mHdqTsuGsx1eEjR7KsXWQJs21MEPsVaJYk2sewY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8nTCOC3kSQ8aZByZ/F7jQI+NxcCmX+JSygZrFMrwcnP8ALZr2gdNK2KEcTUctcD4LUE6O17CllZLMprDAoiw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2595:: with SMTP id p21mr4114287ioo.51.1628793551783; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <78EF3761-7CAF-459E-A4C0-57CDEAFEA8EE@apple.com> <CADVnQynkBxTdapXN0rWOuWO3KXQ2qb6x=xhB35XrMU38JkX2DQ@mail.gmail.com> <601D9D4F-A82C-475A-98CC-383C1F876C44@apple.com> <54699CC9-C8F5-4CA3-8815-F7A21AE10429@icsi.berkeley.edu> <DF5EF1C7-0940-478A-9518-62185A79A288@apple.com> <E150D881-4AB3-4AEA-BE0C-1D4B47B2C531@icir.org> <CADVnQynjE+D-OSvdOVROjT3y1cnHHWqdNQSmphLAJ+HsBTUAJQ@mail.gmail.com> <A1B50403-2405-4348-9626-025D255DEAE7@icir.org> <CADVnQykM8p-bVz_oPrje1yNh9_7_isAUL+wnQWDoY9Gs18sLPQ@mail.gmail.com> <11FE4818-87E7-4FD8-8F45-E19CD9A3366A@apple.com> <CAK6E8=fFWAE_NSr45i2mdh6NmYDusUFW3GYGtuo-FcL07sox9A@mail.gmail.com> <D6B865F7-9865-4B6F-986B-F44ABE5F12B0@apple.com> <756432D9-4331-454D-82EB-346CF54A355E@icir.org> <CAK6E8=c+KeQxWJq0e98hY9XsQ2vhdr3SiKkypC7kwdZbBRgdXA@mail.gmail.com> <A39F73BE-4BF1-479D-911F-0CAC6D91D924@icir.org> <CAK6E8=eEnVtMNBpu0noFAud4BTWdupCH+QY1beFjTtD9ADkK5g@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQynWSCpEBeEtHL0JHCBYwyymX0vku_VbfeDQ_snUoCX=ZA@mail.gmail.com> <76891287-22E6-4071-87C4-8F3A1FD3C2D1@apple.com> <CADVnQy=6XE7mFZRdBar3YXjUMc5URJYcsJvNdUGy26Zz7gajKQ@mail.gmail.com> <1EC4E6CF-604B-411E-BF68-3EF695DB22B5@icir.org> <CAK6E8=eO5=YfVVhMu54Af1K6sb4iXbykON-Zo8__pWfqG3Vk_w@mail.gmail.com> <4A5AA064-CAC9-4319-8E42-463B3E1FAA1E@ericsson.com> <CAM4esxQOp5+_G4xBeCvSbVCQVSKM1n4atZUJzrWrTqXdS8BA4Q@mail.gmail.com> <44490F18-FFB0-4E13-BB97-0FF642B67171@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <44490F18-FFB0-4E13-BB97-0FF642B67171@apple.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:39:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSNwhZc3VWwh7gjZb+G=4N8pfCpZa1aKzsMf7PF+ZEB3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel@apple.com>
Cc: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org>, Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000110e4a05c9610d84"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/v30w597Qu-Lls8F4qwNu8b9G1gw>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] =?utf-8?q?Linux_doesn=E2=80=99t_implement_RFC3465?=
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, 12 Aug 2021 18:39:14 -0000

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:34 AM Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel@apple.com> wrote:

> 2. If there is no such energy, or there are contentious issues that will
> draw out the process to get this to RFC, than I can initiate a review of
> upgrading 3465 to PS directly. I think we all agree this would be an
> improvement on the status quo, but isn't worth doing if 3465bis is going to
> happen quickly.
>
>
> I don’t think 3465 can be upgraded to PS as-is.
>

Why not?


> Personally, I like the structure of 6928 more than 3465. Is it possible to
> rope in ABC (3465) in a 6928bis and
>
change the title - Would like to hear more from the authors of both the
> RFCs.
>

It will take a bit more editorial work, but there's no reason a single
document can't obsolete both RFCs.


>
> Thanks,
> Vidhi
>

Thanks for writing a draft. That will move things along.