IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 09 June 2010 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69EC28C11E for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3+TCGBQCGWiF for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154ED3A67E7 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.214.122.201] (201.sub-75-214-122.myvzw.com [75.214.122.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o59ILth5026185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C0FDBA0.7030500@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:21:20 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com><33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com> <20100609173556.GA5338@nuttenaction> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5809E5C397@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5809E5C397@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig23CBAE26486FC221EE01C91B"
X-MailScanner-ID: o59ILth5026185
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jun 2010 18:23:16 -0000

Hi, Ananth,

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> +1
> 
> FWIW, there is a recent proposal which talks about enhancing TCP
> checksums as well :-
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-anumita-tcpm-stronger-checksum/

I was wondering why this didn't just use the alternate checksum option (they
talk about it, but it's not clear why they don't just assume that path).

> The above proposal tries to leverage on the TCP alternate checksum
> option. My thinking it may be useful to have a "TCP generalized checksum
> option" which can give the flexibility for a TCP stack to choose from a
> set of checksum algorithms (of course the default stays what it is today
> ;-) 

The question is whether we need a "generalized" such option, or whether the
current alternate checksum is basically sufficient, given a table of appropriate
algorithms and algorithm IDs. There are already 253 available ID values left ;-)

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email