Subject: [tcpm] TCP API in 793 / 793bis

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:31:41 -0500

I checked out the Yokohama meeting minutes and recording (sorry I missed 
it in person!).

We need to follow-up on the discussion of what to do (or not do) about 
the TCP API in RFC 793bis.  I know Karen had interest in what will 
happen to this, for one.

As I see it, the issue raised on the TAPS list earlier is that the TCP 
API in 793 dates from 1981 and hasn't been updated significantly since 
then.  It is an abstract API, whereas operating systems implement 
concrete APIs based on sockets, primarily, and that have diverged from 
the description in 793 (and currently 793bis).

I think our options are:
1. Leave it alone, modulo any corrections from errata, other RFCs, etc.
2. Take it out
3. Change it in more significant ways

I don't think option 3 is somewhere we should go.  I think that should 
be a separate effort, if there is desire to do that.  My inclination is 
for option 1.

It will be good to hear what others think, and understand the consensus 
on this though.

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:05:05 -0800

I think option 1 makes sense. I wouldn't be opposed strongly to option 2,
but the doc seems clear on the "advisory" nature of this API.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We need to follow-up on the discussion of what to do (or not do) about the
> TCP API in RFC 793bis.  I know Karen had interest in what will happen to
> this, for one.
>
> As I see it, the issue raised on the TAPS list earlier is that the TCP API
> in 793 dates from 1981 and hasn't been updated significantly since then.
> It is an abstract API, whereas operating systems implement concrete APIs
> based on sockets, primarily, and that have diverged from the description in
> 793 (and currently 793bis).
>
> I think our options are:
> I don't think option 3 is somewhere we should go.  I think that should be
> a separate effort, if there is desire to do that.  My inclination is for
> option 1.
>
> It will be good to hear what others think, and understand the consensus on
> this though.
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:40:27 -0800

Option 1.

A protocol without an (abstract) API isn't a protocol.

I don't think there's a lot that needs to change to support the
requirements of 793-bis.

Joe

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:43:30 -0800

Another vote for Option 1.

---

From: Yuchung Cheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:30:09 -0800

Opt 1 vote

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 06:49:51 +0100

+1 for opt 1

> On 12. nov. 2015, at 23.30, Yuchung Cheng <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Opt 1 vote
> 
> On Nov 12, 2015 1:43 PM, "Tim Wicinski" <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>

---

From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:28:10 +0100

I agree with option 1 as well as.

I am a little curious as to what the “etc.” might end up including.

But let us see.

I agree with option 1 instead of option 3 from the perspective of

achieving something good and valuable with reasonable effort.

We often deal with people referring back to RFC793 API and

having what is in there be correct is important.

That it is not comprehensive is more acceptable.

BR, Karen

*From:* tcpm [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Jana Iyengar
*Sent:* 12. november 2015 22:05
*To:* Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
*Cc:* [email-masked]
*Subject:* Re: [tcpm] TCP API in 793 / 793bis

I checked out the Yokohama meeting minutes and recording (sorry I missed it
in person!).

I think our options are:

I don't think option 3 is somewhere we should go.  I think that should be a
separate effort, if there is desire to do that.  My inclination is for
option 1.