Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:29:12 -0700

> 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
misrepresents what RFC compliance means: the FOO explains how to do FOO;
a system is compliant if it chooses to do FOO in a manner compatible
with the RFC, and non compliant if it chooses an incompatible variant;
however, a system that does not do FOO is neither compliant nor
non-compliant, it just does not do it. There is absolutely no IETF
mandate that all systems implement all RFC. 

Second, RFC 3168 is a "Proposed Standard". To quote RFC 2026:

   Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
   specifications.  It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
   experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
   However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
   problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
   implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
   environment is not recommended. 

So, if you are on a campaign to promote ECN, then maybe you should first
try to promote this specification to the next standard level... You may
also want to take a stab at revising the "Requirements for IP Version 4
Routers"; the last edition, RFC 1812 by Fred Baker, dates from June
1995.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Gary E. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:01:42 -0700 (PDT)

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 router treats bits in the header as required by the STANDARD RFC
793 then RFC 3168 will cause no harm.    I do not have a copy of Baker
handy, but I bet it agrees.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	[email-masked]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676