IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpinc] TCP-ENO draft 04 posted

dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu Fri, 29 July 2016 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C08B12D737 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uq89SQ5RITxA for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (www.scs.stanford.edu [IPv6:2001:470:806d:1::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4830312D5FC for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (localhost.scs.stanford.edu [127.0.0.1]) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u6TLHK8R028022 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dm@localhost) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u6TLHKo1016271; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: market.scs.stanford.edu: dm set sender to dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu using -f
From: dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu
To: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:17:19 -0700
Message-ID: <87invokuu8.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/7Yaa2AnAMXlZeqxzb2cJ3Pr1MTY>
Subject: [tcpinc] TCP-ENO draft 04 posted
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Mazieres expires 2016-10-27 PDT <mazieres-ux4n4kmjgzjcccbc6tmev8hn6n@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>
List-Id: "Discussion list for adding encryption to TCP." <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 21:17:22 -0000

I just posted a new draft of TCP-ENO, available here:

        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/

This reflects the issues discussed in Berlin, as well as the first cut
at data in SYN segments.  Note that these changes are all open for
discussion, I just think that the discussion will be more useful if
framed in terms of concrete language of a draft document.  For that
reason, we will aim for shorter iteration cycles on ENO, and once ENO
stabilizes start updating the other documents to match.

Notable changes:

  * Specs are now TEPs.

  * General suboption renamed global suboption, and refered to more
    consistenly that way.

  * 'cs' (configuration/spec) bits in an initial suboption byte are now
    'glt' (global/length/TEP).

  * The 'm' bit is gone, and we now have z1, z2, z3 in the global
    suboption.

  * Length word is gone.

  * New Data in SYN segments section.

  * IANA considerations:  added some if(TBD == 69) instructions for the
    RFC-editor, and made clear legacy use of 69 can break connection and
    MUST be disabled if it can't be upgraded.

David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email