IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Follow-up questions on allocating reserved TCP header bits

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C98E120898 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 ghA4Hsc7H1Nh for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 213471200A1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:23:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=cceU8M4E4Aum8FSJ9GiXuLxJjIe0DaOK37zdYZeRcCY=; b=HH5WBuezLmZhvUCCtg4HdmzZ5 N7qkoSXRYWfeozE7nPHxU9OPlW+BLnVgEFy1QbEwgq8mzvj/sjNlbc6CQYdiASEoFgcxdxgLWVWQN /uRLUvetHYk4m4nvOvzchnvTmNG+YOeLQxOzVwMbD/99px1JBpPQeO2p6JWoZwKzmdrYEHdLiJb1K gSv/bT+Lko+0c55/x+bWDj0NsifkuqjYzGHr95DuUz46Qz6KGaXAI0C3yarcCsHbqoqUk/WYgKvSX q0gNpZ0IbORP3gCiYaGpM9Nx7uPCXc9r9b792+qJPNmnRjofVvWCJCbNAgrHQvY+W758zu+dCnbt6 jzrO5bByg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50871 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1ihRnZ-0002d3-NX; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:23:06 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0A0F2B86-313C-4C8F-864C-8DA7A196C218"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D854280@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:23:00 -0800
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <C787983B-970A-41CD-A899-F50A205ECBB7@strayalpha.com>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D854280@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/11HvY_LC-7_ej_DtvhTvPq2_8II>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Follow-up questions on allocating reserved TCP header bits
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 18 Dec 2019 05:23:08 -0000

I wanted to focus on just this one point:

> On Dec 17, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
> 
>   Q6.2: How would "additional negotiation mechanisms" work robustly,

They wouldn’t...

> given that TCP struggles with reliably transporting control information after the SYN?

Because it isn’t so much “struggles with” as “does not support”.

These flags shouldn’t be part of negotiation; that’s what options are for.  If TCP wants to define the flags for a connection, why not use the option space? If so, why bother with the flags at all?

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email