[Tsvwg] interoperability (was Re: WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st))

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Wed, 27 May 2009 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891EB3A6D8A for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 20:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JT3vtgmb3lsS for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 20:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB57D3A6D1D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2009 20:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4R3NRAT017120; Tue, 26 May 2009 20:23:27 -0700
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (unknown [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA213A59F6D; Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5908293768; Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A1C6D04.2090709@gont.com.ar>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Lawyers, Guns and Money
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma45609-1"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:21 -0400
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20090527032321.D5908293768@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: Alfred Hönes <ah@tr-sys.de>, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Tsvwg] interoperability (was Re: WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st))
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 03:43:02 -0000

> >   - In 3.1 collisions are discussed as "interoperability problems".  I
> >     don't think that is quite right.  I think the real issue is that
> >     there is added delay in getting things setup.
> 
> If the remaining TIME-WAIT period is larger than the
> connection-establishment timer, the connection-establishment attempt
> will fail. (In any case, I consider long delays in
> connection-establishment attempts as an interoperability
> problem. e.g., racall the studies on interactive applications
> referenced in the tcp soft errors I-D/RFC).
> 
> OTOH, if the TIME-WAIT state is assassinated, packets from a previous
> incarnation of he connection could result in undetected data stream
> corruption.

Well, I still don't buy that you're using the most precise language
here.  I wouldn't refer to this problem in that way.  But, I see where
you're going.

allman