Re: Packet mood
Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 4/1/2010 11:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >> So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it? > > > Probably not. RFC 3514 is actually a protocol. RFC 5841 is not. > > A protocol needs to specify deterministic behavior by participants at > both ends of the exchange. Otherwise there cannot be interoperability. > > The new entry defines publishing labels. That is, its focus is on > conveying mood rather than worrying about the use of mood. At the > least, it might have suggested that a bored packet label should be > subject to a flood of packets in response, just to make the issuer's day > more interesting? This would have been easily avoided had this option been given a more typical April 1-type kind number, e.g., 258. I recall getting queries about how to support similar April 1 RFCs, since the indicator wouldn't fit in the intended field (port number 68000, protocol number 258, etc.). Simply using that kind of (in)sanity check could have helped avoid these issues... Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Packet mood
On 4/1/2010 11:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote: So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it? Probably not. RFC 3514 is actually a protocol. RFC 5841 is not. A protocol needs to specify deterministic behavior by participants at both ends of the exchange. Otherwise there cannot be interoperability. The new entry defines publishing labels. That is, its focus is on conveying mood rather than worrying about the use of mood. At the least, it might have suggested that a bored packet label should be subject to a flood of packets in response, just to make the issuer's day more interesting? This perhaps sounds like sour grapes to the fun of the April 1 series. Let me assure you that it is. Some years back, I submitted an IP-over-email specification and Postel rejected it. He noted that the email service would presumably be operating over IP and that having IP at two levels created a potential addressing anomaly that the specification needed to resolve. (Later IP-over-IP tunneling work probably proved him wrong, but he was certainly right that it was an issue, absent empirical data.) I protested that for goodness' sake this was an April 1 specification. He responded that specifications need to work... FWIW, the good news is that the labeling is based on DSM-IV, but the bad news is that DSM-IV is designed to aid in completing insurance forms, rather than really being tailored for treatment-related guidance in dealing with humans or packets... Given the insurance orientation, perhaps the real purpose of the labels is for bilateral SLAs? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Packet mood
The "TCP-Hulk" option? But that is an RFC for next year ... Maybe we could work our way through all the superheroes ... the BatMan option comes with lots of other options and a smaller, brightly-clad helper option (and money!), SuperMan packets can only be stopped by Kryptonite Firewalls ... /TJ On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 15:11, Scott Brim wrote: > If you don't ack a packet, not only does it get angry, it gets _bigger_ > and begins to turn green! > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- /TJ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Packet mood
> "Fred" == Fred Baker writes: Fred> So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it? I guess all packets to/from .xxx sites need to be marked either :@ or :o. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Packet mood
If you don't ack a packet, not only does it get angry, it gets _bigger_ and begins to turn green! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Packet mood
I hear they were thinking about making it an IPv6 extension header, but they were afraid it would never get deployed that way. --Richard On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote: Fred Baker wrote: So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it? Silly question, Fred. What possible relationship could a TCP option have to an IP option? Bob Braden http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Packet mood
Fred Baker wrote: So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it? Silly question, Fred. What possible relationship could a TCP option have to an IP option? Bob Braden http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
