Subject: Packet mood

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:05:54 -0700

So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it?

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:47:41 -0700

> 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

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:56:59 -0400

I hear they were thinking about making it an IPv6 extension header,  
but they were afraid it would never get deployed that way.

--Richard

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:11:48 -0400

If you don't ack a packet, not only does it get angry, it gets _bigger_
and begins to turn green!

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:15:54 -0400

>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker <[email-masked]> 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.

---

From: TJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:15:57 -0400

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

-- 
/TJ

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:56:10 -0700

> 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