<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">[Top posting because it makes
sense in this case, so one does not have to dig through intercalated
replies as one follows the top level of a thread. And multi-part
miming because it is the most polite to the most diverse crowd of mail
readers, as well as being a *standard* (Dave Crocker will verify this).]<br>
<br>
Clearly I made a mistake in guessing what makes the introduction of
64-bit TSOPT worthy of a query. So let me avoid guessing why this was
asked, since the only explanation offered by the author of the query
was <br>
<br>
Instead, I will ask the question that should be asked of every
proposal: what problem would this solve, does it solve it fully, and is
it a problem that is best answered by leaving it to the application in
question? (this is the end-to-end argument's core question - one that
should be considered in every network protocol design).<br>
<br>
AFAICT from the author's brief posting of his query, the rationale was
a reference to "back in the day there was an expressed interest" and
"would it be of some utility". Neither of these are problem statements
sufficient to justify a change that affects all TCP stacks on all
platforms.<br>
<br>
If the author is seeking help, perhaps he will grace us with an
explanation of a problem that this proposal would be the best approach
to solve?<br>
<br>
I would point out that the sequence space and PAWS tend to fall into
the category of "functions" that do not fully solve applications
problems, but are merely "optimizations". The text in RFC 1323 alludes
to exactly this point in the cited Appendix B (which I will not requote
for the readers' convenience here, given the authors' rage at my use of
an email to cite a key section of design rationale).<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On 09/09/2009 04:00 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AA760AE.3030806@gmail.com" type="cite">David P.
Reed wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 09/08/2009 06:42 PM, William Allen Simpson
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">David P. Reed wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In regard to DNS security issues, ...
But PAWS may not be useful, since DNS itself might be made to maintain
state across connections, moving the problem out of TCP and into the
app (DNS) layer where it probably belongs.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
This has no relation to the question that I asked, which has no mention
<br>
what-so-ever about DNS security. Nor did I find the cut and paste of
an
<br>
old familiar RFC appendix particularly informative, not even in fancy
<br>
multi-part alternative html (instead of the native format)....
<br>
<br>
In any case, I've been paying attention to the more recent 1323bis.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
List moderator - please suspend Simpson's privileges; the rules suggest
that his obnoxious behavior towards a helpful comment demand moderation
until he stops behaving this way.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Or vice versa. Must Mr. Reed "poison the well" of every discussion?
<br>
<br>
I've fixed his top-posting (again), and his multipart alternative
(again).
<br>
<br>
The comment was *not* helpful, as it bore no relation to the query, and
<br>
his proof by assertion is not good argument. Nor is his condescension
<br>
appropriate behavior.
<br>
<br>
Going forward, I'll do my best to ignore his posts, as long as they
don't
<br>
interfere with discussion on the merits.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>