Re: [tcpm] Moving forward draft-touch-sne on independent stream?

Yoshifumi Nishida <> Mon, 29 November 2021 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38893A090C; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:29:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T_681pHLFHx0; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:29:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0B053A0908; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:29:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t11so17919055qtw.3; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:29:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TzFy/MHZ3pmVfi/5ApsjTBxKVErAi9A2RabNl7sY5M4=; b=Yt1bN/lk80qL+ILShvIggfXmt050HITdUY/w1o7k3ffD2O5ZWC5zB7Gyw6Dh4JNhV5 IS0ZPuYNR4pDm7L1DyOCKHFIOpQDhF3/vRbzOrYou8Oe+aAzqnQ8SyQPf+3Ni3ub7Cy9 /1z0ubLcJb1moH7j5sSshOGndfjgLk/qkpaYOwR3clCmai1Ps3K7IxMOmU9Qg75Qd242 RREmVxv635gijtq8t7Qa0CRqeeCSmMuuEGeK+tE/dV28kVI4845eeD3cgQRv1yFY6KwG hYgZ9iOzOqYvGzFDgnf3OQWETKYstsQLCDWqW1iEShQ1PGb96zMOeDJLXycDvu0RIyh2 7snQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TzFy/MHZ3pmVfi/5ApsjTBxKVErAi9A2RabNl7sY5M4=; b=c29VJuycpdO2ynzy55vSe7f14lfPe/GJLrB0iFAt5+GR+CaCBKT191CDSGBz8rSa7V lKzdOlCxcLSmcF0NUbjVfN9GG2VmgRdVyVdQZituy4hKN0xMouaqVPfCxYYB6PQDp9T3 +9ZG7i+4qaR0X7ejwVsuBot312LpbzdsAqXZwjMrdYKBBgE0PQGP/CW78V0nhcxhZtnY Thq4QLXXWmM9eHw2/+JihrmuGRnQ+J8VH74uwHes3orE1leAZZMPyjeXtCRvVYXBOEF6 lq9uK/kpVlm3fxYWsVvBnl3VJGxxe/mg6lCJt22N7I42D/2tGofdk4fkoXPFSp8JQ50g 8+gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530IObmJv7yMDKxzqLlGNHC55Ab4MS5UT3h4u3T2ErUHX3xC2Qgv h51l13ouDv2NoenFez0xrClBlXAvFJNvDuph+oo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdxhxnwCk4U5REQOEOIDMJaCSOWFVZLhww/kRbukdRQXZRxyuh7YOEDPSEKxMYxpK57gBm5MLWkiiHMIdsXnA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:454:: with SMTP id o20mr39120425qtx.617.1638217748703; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:29:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:28:57 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Duke <>
Cc: "Scharf, Michael" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f9ecda05d1f34a9b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Moving forward draft-touch-sne on independent stream?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:29:16 -0000

Hi Martin,

This is just my opinion as an individual contributor.
I prefer to discuss this draft in the WG more rather than publishing it as
an IS.
I think SYN option space extension is an important feature for TCP's
future, so I think it would be better to have a standardized solution for
Also, I don't see strong benefits to publish it for now.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Martin Duke <>

> The conflict review is now in my inbox, and we will discuss it on December
> 2nd. If there are any concerns about this, please say so immediately.

> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 1:05 PM Scharf, Michael <
>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Joe has submitted draft-touch-sne to the ISE asking for publication of an
>> RFC on the Independent Stream. (Background: An RFC on Independent Stream is
>> not an IETF standard.)
>> Publication on independent stream would be possible provided that the
>> document does not conflict with TCPM or other IETF work. An obvious
>> alternative would be homing the document in TCPM (or TSVWG) as an official
>> WG item - but this is not what is currently proposed.
>> A link to the document is:
>> Note that the current header field "TCPM" would have to be replaced in
>> the further publication process, as documents on the independent stream are
>> not the outcome of an IETF WG.
>> The TCPM chairs have reviewed draft-touch-sne. Our current understanding
>> that there would be no harm caused by such an independent stream
>> publication. As far as RFC 5925 is affected, we assume that an Errata would
>> be possible and sufficient.
>> Before we get back to the ISE regarding this document, we would like to
>> cross-check whether our understanding is indeed the TCPM consensus:
>> Are there any concerns inside the TCPM community regarding a publication
>> of draft-touch-sne draft-touch-sne on independent stream? If so, please
>> speak up!
>> Thanks
>> Michael
>> on behalf of all chairs
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list