Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd)

[James Sutherland]

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.