Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:09:19 +0000 (GMT) | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) |
| |
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> James Sutherland wrote: > > > I'm sure we all know what the IETF is, and where ECN came from. I haven't > > seen anyone suggesting ignoring RST, either: DM just imagined that, > > AFAICS. > > > > The one point I would like to make, though, is that firewalls are NOT > > "brain-damaged" for blocking ECN: according to the RFCs governing > > firewalls, and the logic behind their design, blocking packets in an > > unknown format (i.e. with reserved bits set) is perfectly legitimate. Yes, > > those firewalls should be updated to allow ECN-enabled packets > > through. However, to break connectivity to such sites deliberately just > > because they are not supporting an *experimental* extension to the current > > protocols is rather silly. > > Do keep in mind, we aren't breaking connectivity, they are.
Let me guess: you're a lawyer? :-)
This is a very strange definition: if someone makes a change such that their machine can no longer communicate with existing systems, I would say the person making the incompatible change is the one who broke it.
Maybe my mains sockets should be waterproof: it's still my fault when pouring water over them causes problems, even if the standards say the socket should be waterproof!
James.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |