Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-16.txt

[Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all, 

I didn’t see these proposed ways forward before, so I’ll add my preferences to them in particular below.

Joe

> On Mar 25, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Wes,
>  
> Regarding 1), I think that has been some (supportive) list discussion on cleaning up the IANA registry.
>  
> To provide some data point, here is how I would answer the first two questions in my summary – as usually as individual contributor: 
>  
>  
> Question 1: Should an IANA registry be created for bits 4, 5, and 6 with status "Reserved", which are missing on https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-header-flags/tcp-header-flags.xhtml? <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-header-flags/tcp-header-flags.xhtml?>
>  
> => Michael’s opinion: Yes, I think this should be done in 793bis

+1

> Question 2: Should the IANA registry move to a sub-registry on the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Parameters page (https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml>).
>  
> => Michael’s opinion: Yes, I think this should be done in 793bis

+1
 
> A little bit more tricky is the third question, which mostly matters for the entry created by RFC 8311…
>  
> Question 3: Should past (and current) use of bits be documented in the IANA registry, and, if so, how?
>  
> => Michael’s opinion: We could discuss whether to change the table structure (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-header-flags/tcp-header-flags.xhtml#tcp-header-flags-1 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-header-flags/tcp-header-flags.xhtml#tcp-header-flags-1>) to record past use, e.g., by adding another column and moving the statement “previously used by Historic [RFC3540] as NS (Nonce Sum)” to that new column. The new column could have a title such as “Comments”, “Past Use”, etc. That would be a purely editorial change, as it would just reorganize the table, but not change any entry. I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on that, though. Even if we decided that this was useful, we could also postpone that change to the first standards-track document that actually needs this, e.g., by reallocation bit 7 to a new use. Until this happens, the current table format still works. So my suggestion would be to do nothing unless others from the community strongly support a change by 793bis.

I favor the approach we use for IANA ports here.

Document official assignments officially.

Document unofficial uses vaguely - enough to say “someone uses it” but NOT specifically who or how. The latter ends up effectively endorsing squatting.

IANA does this by saying “known unauthorized use”.


Joe