I found the problem when coming back from Inet2002 and alerted Lynn and Anne. It was the first time they heard about it, they told me... (between us I don care who found it first... does it really matter?)
Now, if someone alerted them before, and they forgot about it. I worried that they
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Franck Martin
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:17 PM
To: 'Gary E. Miller'; Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf
Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...
I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that
ISOC web site is not reachable if you enable ECN
At 01:16 AM 7/24/2002, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that ISOC
web site is not reachable if you enable ECN, which RFC793(standard) or
RFC3168(proposed Standard) talk about.
I don't want to talk about what is a standard or what is not... What
Franck,
ISOC knows about this, but you actually need to contact ISOC's ISP.
But frankly it's a quixotic mission; SMTP mailers that break when they
find a non-ECN-tolerant SMTP peer are likely to encounter trouble for
some years to come.
The issue here is that there is a MAY in RFC 3168
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Franck,
ISOC knows about this, but you actually need to contact ISOC's ISP.
But frankly it's a quixotic mission; SMTP mailers that break when they
find a non-ECN-tolerant SMTP peer are likely to encounter trouble for
some years to come.
Yo Daniel!
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:
RFC3168 is dated September 2001. That's pretty recent.
RFC 793 is dated September 1981. If the routers/firewalls handled
packets per RFC 793 there would be no problem. Just set them to zero
and pass them along.
The reserved bits were
In regards to all comments.
Yes I'm using linux 2.4.x, and I'm disabling linux to handle ECN, because
there is too much trouble with important organisations we are working with.
I gave early an URL that lists some of these organisations like some
important departments of the US government
Please stop arguing on how a router should handle bits. There is a problem
here ISOC or ISOC's ISP has some broken routers (we all agree on that?)
and they need to be fixed.
best to call the net police immediately
randy
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The issue here is that there is a MAY in RFC 3168 that IMHO should
be a SHOULD. That's the first MAY in section 6.1.1.1. If your ECN
code implemented that MAY, you would not have seen a problem.
Nope, not true. The
Yo Christian!
Actually, RFC 3168 has nothing to do with it. The issue is RFC 793.
RFC 793 is a Standard, not a Proposed Standard
RFC 793 lists the bits later used by ECN as Reserved. Computer programs
are supposed to ignore Reserved bits unless they really know what
they are doing.
If a
One of this router leads to the ISOC web site. what is funny is to see
the
above RFC is copyright ISOC. Could someone located in the Washington
DC area
please contact the ISOC people and help them to be RFC compliant...
Your reference to RFC compliance is somewhat mistaken. First, it
:02
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf
Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...
Yo Christian!
Actually, RFC 3168 has nothing to do with it. The issue is RFC 793.
RFC 793 is a Standard, not a Proposed Standard
RFC 793 lists the bits later used by ECN as Reserved. Computer programs
12 matches
Mail list logo
