-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 7/28/16 13:18, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/28/2016 1:11 PM, Theodore V Faber wrote:
>> On 7/28/16 13:04, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>>> I.e., we should NEVER use these boxes to govern how we build
>>> TCP for the masses.
>> 
>> To say that another way: vendors who produce such devices are
>> failing to follow the Postel principle.
> 
> The Postel Principle talks about what to do when the docs don't
> say otherwise.

No.  The Postel Principle applies to networking in general.  "Be
simple in your behavior and tolerant of others" does not include any
proviso about an IETF position.

> 
>> Whether the IETF says anything explicitly or not,
> 
> Actually, they're quite directly contradicting explicit existing
> standards.

Which falls under "says anything," right?  Feeling crabby, are we?

> 
>> they're producing artifacts of less value to their customers.
>> Standards-compliant stacks will emit TCP options in ways that
>> such vendors evidently don't expect.
> 
> Those vendors shouldn't be looking at TCP options or TCP at all.
> It's none of their business.
> 
> Maybe we should just start using IPsec in BTNS mode (to avoid
> needing keys) as a tunnel to get through all such devices.
> 
>> 
>> The IETF standard reflects a consensus among designers and 
>> implementers that there's no constraint on TCP option ordering.
>> The time to argue about it is past; live with it or produce
>> crappy products.
> 
> This issue cannot be fixed merely by reacting to what vendors
> deploy.

"React?"  Bah.

How is my position unclear here?  I advocate that the IETF do nothing.

Perhaps in a just world, their competitors should pipe up and say
"Whoever's crappy product breaks stuff."  The IETF has said its piece:
"there is no constraint on the order of TCP options."

> 
> The solution has been clear for a long time - *compliance
> verification*. I assure you that vendors that get sued for saying
> "Internet compatible" who are not would behave differently.

We prefer different societal pressures, evidently.  I like the one
where I can be lazier.


- -- 
Ted Faber <[email protected]>
Engineering Specialist
Computer Systems Research Department
310-336-7373
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=XtdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to