Re: Summary of proposed changes to draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench

"DeSimone, Antonio" <Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu> Thu, 02 December 2010 22:15 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 5AB483A67AD for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:15:39 -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 AkdDhs2yijDE for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jhuapl.edu (pilot.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480D13A6452 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([128.244.198.90]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP with TLS id 63GHCH1.99998363; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:16:38 -0500
Received: from aplesstripe.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.211]) by aplexcas1.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.90]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:16:38 -0500
From: "DeSimone, Antonio" <Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:16:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Summary of proposed changes to draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench
Thread-Topic: Summary of proposed changes to draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench
Thread-Index: AcuRopNr0zf7xNbnS0CcXjJeFONjgwAzAFWk
Message-ID: <C91D84F3.7153%Antonio.DeSimone@jhuapl.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4CF6C471.9070304@gont.com.ar>
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_3374154995_4974881"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
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: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:15:39 -0000

On 12/1/10 4:56 PM, "Fernando Gont" <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:

Fernando,

Looks good.

> Please respond to each of these:
> 
> 1) Do *not* update the "SHOULD NOT generate ICMP SQ" in RFC 1812 to
> "MUST NOT generate ICMP SQ".

agree--consenting implementations and all that...

> 2) Update the text in RFC 1812 that states "A router MAY ignore any ICMP
> Source Quench messages it receives".
> 
> The resulting text would s/MAY/SHOULD/. This would align the
> requirements for routers with the requirements for hosts (of ignoring
> ICMP SQs)

agree

> 3) Update the text in RFC 1122 that states "If a Source Quench message
> is received, the IP layer MUST report it to the transport layer (or ICMP
> processing)."
> 
> The resulting text would read: "If a Source Quench message is received,
> the IP layer MAY silently discard it.

agree

> 4) Update the security considerations section noting that most host
> implementation currently ignore ICMP SQ (as noted in RFC 5927), and
> mention that they could be filtered at firewalls if deemed necessary (no
> normative language here, though)

agree

> 5) Have this document obsolete RFC 1016 (Prue, W., and J. Postel, "The
> Source Quench Introduced Delay (SQuID)")

It's not a big deal either way, but I'd just leave RFC1016 out of it.  It's
just, as it says, a crazy idea.

I think I made the comment before that some of this is academic.  In that
sense I agree with Fred's opinion that much of this is not likely to affect
real implementations.  However, if we're going to produce an update I think
we should be a complete as practical, especially if there are MUST
statements in standards related to SQ--that's why I brought up 1122.  For
better or for worse, there are people who take a "checklist" approach to RFC
compliance.  Actually, almost never for better :).