I don't see why this is embarrasing. I have no problems with people setting up filtering rules that say DENY-ALL accept packets that I EXPLICITLY know what every bit does, and I want to allow it... That said, ECN is a relatively recent addition to the suite and I wouldn't expect all firewalling rules to be setup to use it (I believe that some of the bits involved have been used by other experimental protocols for other things). For this reason I don't think this behavior is as bad or embarrassing as you think it is. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:17 PM To: 'Gary E. Miller'; Christian Huitema Cc: ietf Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help... I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that ISOC web site is not reachable if you enable ECN, which RFC793(standard) or RFC3168(proposed Standard) talk about. I don't want to talk about what is a standard or what is not... What is compliant or not... Will there be anybody to volunteer and fix the routers leading to ISOC web site, mailing lists, e-mail addresses and so on? This is what my message is all about. Please IETF members in Washington DC, Area, please give a call to ISOC and offer some help... This is embarrassing, that's all.... Cheers. Franck Martin Network and Database Development Officer SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission Fiji E-mail: franck@sopac.org <mailto:franck@sopac.org> Web site: http://www.sopac.org/ <http://www.sopac.org/> Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/ <http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/> Certificate: https://www.sopac.org/ssl/ This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily the views of SOPAC. -----Original Message----- From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:gem@rellim.com] Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2002 3:02 To: Christian Huitema Cc: ietf Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help... 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 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Christian Huitema wrote: > 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.