Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Inconsistencies between TCP RFCs and Linux implementation (was Re: Comments on draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-option)s-08
"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 20:34 UTC
Return-Path: <michael.scharf@nokia.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 DF1D912951C; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 SLuAbuDHuy4N; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR03-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr40118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.4.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16090129466; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=JjKUp9+fSqfzVcHGGPLMvMnKopZi57NBO8QL8Lzcevk=; b=pCWBTGw+1isgkPVN3C1Cx3ewp7mD57eR7L9STKakJq3aY4szcKEDAKAwvFATnsyOp+cAtpX5BYDCpYlb20BiJe5ppBWMMtnpUEjsZvKvyowUhAjet4+9eu2XMBmjyL+22jJmck548wdg/62ZOtrpWm296BhHq8UdJkb3ystM6xI=
Received: from AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.173.92.15) by AM5PR0701MB2545.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.173.92.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1061.6; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:34:46 +0000
Received: from AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.92.15]) by AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.92.15]) with mapi id 15.01.1061.010; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:34:46 +0000
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Inconsistencies between TCP RFCs and Linux implementation (was Re: Comments on draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-option)s-08
Thread-Index: AQHSvfjgkRpnlSVAxE67P4m3suQfs6HWhEwAgAADG4CAAAIM0g==
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:34:46 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0701MB25474D7605D2D57A6818DF00931E0@AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALx6S34TfVW_tinXmdk_JBm=H_jbxmxDHkUTtnbUzPKtLvpz4w@mail.gmail.com> <6e301f3d-0ec3-2ef3-eafa-6facdea0053d@isi.edu>, <dd785720-9b34-9827-be8a-0ff4532e44c3@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <dd785720-9b34-9827-be8a-0ff4532e44c3@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [25.163.180.4]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0701MB2545; 7:lf0A9WnqvsoxeLgOh8Zi3Qqr2v9rZfv2GqsJ6F2UjuduPrf9m3kgCnBXxESP8GUa4S1QuoUkHIhD+5w3ZhaEAY/s254RM257uQgZAR/eGVu59BfX1FfU1adFDsklZWzv+vJO3c6upj8Y9uxJkHpSxYk2iuHR+5InsB1/PZAKIi632wHNBqS7XPx9fnfsBCGTR9H3jSGIhp1t5Z9vzuUZDYF2rq5KggAVIf+CfW1uVf/nOrTMvUg+DY/p3EI4YRg4W6j1S0/LH3e9kmRe4RmArUHCf3ODx6kJcSoiOuWkiIyb23ZpQuIzONhNmCQdklTcbJpSjjM2XF9MkrHza2M/BA==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 045241dc-6a21-4b74-fef3-08d48c1a8389
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2545;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM5PR0701MB254593BEF19974B014973833931E0@AM5PR0701MB2545.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(6072148); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2545; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2545;
x-forefront-prvs: 0288CD37D9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39400400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39850400002)(39410400002)(39860400002)(102836003)(3846002)(8936002)(2900100001)(81166006)(6506006)(8676002)(86362001)(2950100002)(558084003)(6116002)(6436002)(25786009)(77096006)(5660300001)(74316002)(7696004)(33656002)(122556002)(7736002)(305945005)(4326008)(76176999)(50986999)(230783001)(54356999)(66066001)(38730400002)(53936002)(6246003)(3280700002)(55016002)(9686003)(2906002)(54906002)(2171002)(3660700001)(99286003)(229853002)(189998001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2545; H:AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Apr 2017 20:34:46.7697 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0701MB2545
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/wb_y3URzeeMjnEDJio7vuAzxeXA>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Inconsistencies between TCP RFCs and Linux implementation (was Re: Comments on draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-option)s-08
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:34:51 -0000
+TCPM > - an Experimental RFC (TFO) is deployed as default enabled in the wild beyond those actively involved in the experiment (see RFC2026) IMHO a 7413bis could target standards track. Of course, details would have to be sorted out. Michael (with no hat on)
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Inconsistencies between TCP RF… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Inconsistencies between TCP RF… Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)