Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]

Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU> Wed, 21 November 2007 22:45 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyKL-0003Is-2G; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:45:49 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyKJ-0003Ig-On for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:45:47 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyKJ-0003IY-FE for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:45:47 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyKG-0000du-Sl for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:45:47 -0500
Received: from hut.isi.edu (hut.isi.edu [128.9.168.160]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lALMjEns019157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from faber@localhost) by hut.isi.edu (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id lALMjEEM020428; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:45:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from faber)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:45:14 -0800
From: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Message-ID: <20071121224514.GJ13024@hut.isi.edu>
References: <20071121192901.GF13024@hut.isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE020@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <20071121213610.GH13024@hut.isi.edu> <4744AE06.1090808@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4744AE06.1090808@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-url: http://www.isi.edu/~faber
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: faber@hut.isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0421971426=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 02:15:34PM -0800, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> I saw this e-mail just after I had hit the send button for my last e-mail.
> 
> Ted Faber wrote:
> >I (personally) don't see the point of publishing an RFC that describes
> >a technique that a conformant TCP cannot implement.
> >  
> I do not see any reason why the proposed solution cannot be implemented. 
> Are you suggesting that because we cannot implement it is why it should 
> not be implemented?

The conformant TCP cannot implement the fix because it would violate
1122 and then no longer be a conformant TCP. 

I understand you can write the code.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm