Subject: [tcpm] 793bis and RFC3168

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:00:36 +0000

Does 793bis warrant an 
Updates 3168?

It does change the format of the IANA registry as created by RFC3168 and so would seem an update.  I realise that the IANA registry will point to 793bis; I am unclear whether the revised registry will have any mention of RFC3168 not that it changes my view on Updates.

Tom Petch

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 08:55:37 +0100

On 06/10/2021 13:00, tom petch wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

Thanks for asking, I looked at this.

RFC 3168 gave initial contents of the registry and stated:

    The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) included a 6-bit Reserved
    field defined inRFC 793  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>, reserved for future use, in bytes 13 and 14
    of the TCP header, as illustrated below.  The other six Control bits
    are defined separately byRFC 793  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>.

This could have been handled more elegantly, but  I think the RFC3168 
text remains correct, in that the base TCP spec (RFC793, or it's bis) 
define the 6 other bits.  To me, there is no change to the meaning of 
RFC3168 intended by 793bis, and I think updating a reference would not 
need to be flagged as an update.

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst

(as co-chair tsvwg).

---

From: t petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 12:39:26 +0100

On 07/10/2021 08:55, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>> It does change the format of the IANA registry as created by RFC3168
>> and so would seem an update.  I realise that the IANA registry will
>> point to 793bis; I am unclear whether the revised registry will have
>> any mention of RFC3168 not that it changes my view on Updates.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>     field defined inRFC 793
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>, reserved for future use,
> in bytes 13 and 14
>     are defined separately byRFC 793
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793>.
>

Yeees, I was looking at the format where 'Bit' is updated to 'Bit 
Offset' and 'Assignment Notes' is added.  An update?  Perhaps not.

Tom Petch

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 12:45:07 +0100

> Offset' and 'Assignment Notes' is added.  An update?  Perhaps not.
Thanks for your quick reply. I defer to the Wes/TCPM chairs to say if 
this is needed. If it is, then please do liaise with TSVWG to ensure the 
update is consistent with the expectations of TSVWG.

Gorry

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:01:29 -0400

> need to be flagged as an update.

I pretty much agree with this, and further would say that I can't think 
of either anything in 793bis that alters technical material from 3168 
nor any reason why someone implementing 3168 should be additionally 
pointed at 793bis, so I don't think it needs to update 3168.

---

From: "Scharf, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 21:52:33 +0000

> update is consistent with the expectations of TSVWG.

The document is in IESG evaluation, i.e., if changes were needed, they would 
have to be decided by the IESG.

Having said this, the consensus here seems to be that nothing needs to change. 
So my proposal would be not to update 3168.

Michael
(as document sheperd)

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:25:21 -0700

I agree; it does not update 3168.