Re: [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-09.txt> (TCP Fast Open) to Experimental RFC
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 09 July 2014 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BAE1A038F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 1vaq-IIjQcJn for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A05B1A0379 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s69IQHIq002688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53BD8949.7030300@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:26:17 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, tcpm@ietf.org
References: <20140709123859.28906.60683.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20140709174233.GD4461@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20140709174233.GD4461@verdi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/-OeFPbsgD4skToOk5NrSLG-tnDk
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-09.txt> (TCP Fast Open) to Experimental RFC
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 18:26:47 -0000
On 7/9/2014 10:42 AM, John Leslie wrote: > The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor >> Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: >> - 'TCP Fast Open' >> <draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-09.txt> as Experimental RFC > > Have we actually settled how this would interact with EDO? EDO currently does not change its behavior depending on other options. The only options that might require interpreting EDO would be TCP-AO (to include or omit options in the HMAC calculation) or any alternate checksums (there was one, but it's been obsoleted). Otherwise, I don't think there is - or should be - any interaction at all. The only proposal I saw to link them involved SYN-EDO, not EDO (i.e., to deal with the initial SYN). I already responded as to why I don't think the proposed approach is useful, but the SYN-EDO doc hasn't even been posted yet. Joe