IETF Logo Mail Archive

[conex] draft-ietf-conex-destopt-01.txt

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 07 November 2011 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FE721F8B05 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:01:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fJfSk4DLfH6F for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7074F21F8B01 for <conex@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 4B5F533C27; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:01:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:01:35 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: conex@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20111107160135.GA45061@verdi>
References: <20111030141755.21962.83789.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111030141755.21962.83789.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: [conex] draft-ietf-conex-destopt-01.txt
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:01:36 -0000

internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-conex-destopt-01.txt

   The changes are all additions at the end of Section 4.

   In this post, I ask for clarification of the first added sentence:
] 
] All packets of a ConEx-capable connection MUST carry the CDO.

   I'm guessing the intention is that "all packets" must include this
ConEx Destination Option. But I don't want to venture too far before
getting a yes or no...

   Also, we should clarify whether we mean "in both directions".

   Perhaps we should even clarify when we start counting "all".
(Presumably not the first ACK of SYN-ACK; what about the second?)

   Regardless, I'll venture so far as to ask "Why should _all_ packets
carry this option?" I'd like to see a _lot_ more justification for
adding this much overhead.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status