Re: Deprecating ICMP Source Quench messages

"DeSimone, Antonio" <Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu> Mon, 29 November 2010 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <antonio.desimone@jhuapl.edu>
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 EC88728C142 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:48:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 l58ebo4pF+H6 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jhuapl.edu (piper.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08B128C0CE for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([128.244.198.90]) by piper.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP with TLS id 5Y8HCH1.95539033; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:49:33 -0500
Received: from aplesstripe.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.211]) by aplexcas1.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.90]) with mapi; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:49:33 -0500
From: "DeSimone, Antonio" <Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, 'Fernando Gont' <fernando@gont.com.ar>, 'tsvwg' <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:49:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Deprecating ICMP Source Quench messages
Thread-Topic: Deprecating ICMP Source Quench messages
Thread-Index: AcuNw0U9CcEHe9RJQ2ODPg/MHb9vAgCTjhVwAAGMSeE=
Message-ID: <C919982A.7018%Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu>
In-Reply-To: <0e2d01cb9011$992edc60$cb8c9520$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.7.0.100913
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3373897770_15054075"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:48:34 -0000

Yes, looks good.  About time and seems to properly update RFC 1122's
direction on transport layers.

This is probably only of academic interest, but RFC 1122 also says, "If a
Source Quench message is received, the IP layer MUST report it to the
transport layer (or ICMP processing)."  I'd be happy to see section 3 of
draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench also say, "If a Source Quench message is
received, an IP implementation MAY silently discard it."  Dropping the ICMP
message at the IP layer seems to have at least a minor benefit; 1122
currently precludes that option.



On 11/29/10 5:05 PM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Fernando Gont
>> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 3:40 PM
>> To: tsvwg
>> Subject: Deprecating ICMP Source Quench messages
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> At the tsvwg wg meeting @ Beijing I presented the I-D
>> draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench-00, which aims at deprecating ICMP
>> Source
>> Quench messages.
>> 
>> My understanding is that the general feeling was "Oh, yeah... we should
>> have deprecated ICMP Source Quench a long time ago" (which had also
>> been
>> the feeling at tcpm when we had discussed this idea years ago).
>> 
>> However, since nobody had actually read the I-D, the decision about
>> adoption of this document as a wg item was deferred.
>> 
>> So I'm asking for feedback on the document, and on whether there's
>> support to pursue this document in tsvwg.
>> 
>> FWIW, the document is so short that, even if you have not read it
>> before, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to skim through it.
> 
> I read it.  Looks good.
> 
> Might also want to mention that ICMPv6 didn't bother defining
> Source Quench.
> 
> -d
> 
>