Re: [tcpm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Joseph Touch <> Mon, 12 April 2021 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4BC3A262E; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.069
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.069 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, HAS_X_OUTGOING_SPAM_STAT=2.388, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xSTgscPuhTPV; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395AD3A262C; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: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=Ebjo8/ah76yf9yz3UjvT6KBVw14AqxGYA8aQl8z4+0E=; b=zEFlkOmd22D/D1vhb/U+7OJiU UdqRpf9xJ4Q8Wtol9wRRSzJGnZkjS6IIDsdIkmrhnHnfiAQ83Vz1erGzLe+hW6wtL0IYsc+YAFUNx SiZfQKgr8n2XYDEukOoTnHpu0ST9K8A08tV6B0jXfMLGIvRmyqUwlpkS+kZtsml2h3ZcgWWBlbbCo veNc9ccotSBd0R0qC+qvpuCmPRSZXIDieh6xK7wKVaT/MDyQ+BV/fE/30ufjTBxWIbyw2DYitrFQ0 8yupnmXSrgwXg98D08Pn27Lk2DhEYW77NZSdByFCEDIwvRnA7XqM7Gb3uxvf2avJhKpusqhRIrhDi dPhTYwgcQ==;
Received: from ([]:58422 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <>) id 1lVknK-002IWx-Bd; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:51:18 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:51:09 -0700
Cc: The IESG <>,, tcpm-chairs <>, tcpm IETF list <>, Michael Scharf <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with COMMENT)
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, 12 Apr 2021 00:51:25 -0000

Hi, Benjamin,

Thank you for your feedback.

All items below have been incorporated in the upcoming update.

Some notes below to assist tracking.


> On Mar 25, 2021, at 2:07 AM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: No Objection
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks to the shepherd for the very helpful writeup!
> Section 3
>   +RTTVAR - variance of round-trip times of a TCP packet exchange
>   [RFC6298]
> nit: in RFC 6298 this is "round-trip time variation", which to me is a more
> useful description, since it is not a standard statistical averaged
> squared deviation.


> Section 6.2
> A forward reference to where the "merge()" operation is discussed would
> be helpful.

Added text when this and other table functions are introduced.

>   During the connection, the associated TCB can be updated based on
>   particular events, as shown below:
> nit(?): should we s/associated TCB/assoicated TCB cache/?  (Likewise for
> §6.2.)

Yes. Clarified in both sec 6 and 7.

> Section 9
>   confirmation, etc.) [RFC3124]. By dealing exclusively with
>   transients, TCB interdependence is more likely to exhibit the same
>   behavior as unmodified, independent TCP connections.
> Is this the "same behavior" in the steady-state?  There seem to be
> obvious (intentional) differences in behavior at startup.

Yes; clarified.

> Section 10
>   The observation that some TCB state is host-pair specific rather
>   than application-pair dependent is not new and is a common
>   engineering decision in layered protocol implementations. Although
>   now deprecated, T/TCP [RFC1644] was the first to propose using
>   caches in order to maintain TCB states (see 0).
> "see 0" feels like a broken automation for referencing Appendix A.
> (Also occurs in Section 11 for the same T/TCP topic.)


> Section 11
> (nit) this feels more like a "changes from RFC 2140" section than an
> "updates to RFC 2140" section, to me.


> Appendix B
> A reference to the IANA registry might help the reader make sense of
> some of these option names.


> Appendix C
>   Temporal sharing, as described earlier in this document, builds on
>   the assumption that multiple consecutive connections between the
>   same host pair are somewhat likely to be exposed to similar
>   environment characteristics. The stored information can therefore
>   become invalid over time, and suitable precautions should be taken
> nit: I don't think the preceding sentence justifies the use of
> "therefore" here.


> Appendix C.2
>   environment, can always use a different value. In specific,
>   information from previous connections, or sets of connections with a
>   similar path, can already be used as context for such decisions (as
>   noted in the core of this document).
> nit: it feels like there might be a missing word here, perhaps
> "situations" after "specific"?  Or perhaps just s/specific/particular/?

The latter seems clearer to me.

> Appendix C.3
>   1. On boot:
>      IW = MaxIW; # assume this is in bytes, and an even number of MSS
> nit: is "even number" intended to mean "integral multiple"?

Actually both; it’s described later as “integer multiple of 2 MSS” to support ACK compression. This is explained here as well.

>   A number of additional constraints need to be imposed if this
>   mechanism is implemented to ensure that it defaults values that
> nit: singular/plural mismatch (maybe "it defaults to values"?)

The latter; fixed.

> Appendix C.4
>   reasons (e.g., the ISN is used in TCP-AO [RFC5925]). The mechanism
>   also benefits from persistent state kept across reboots, as would be
>   other state sharing mechanisms (e.g., TCP Control Block Sharing
>   [RFC2140]). The mechanism is inspired by RFC 2140's use of
>   information across connections.
> It feels strange for some reason to reference RFC 2140 here when this
> document obsoletes RFC 2140.

Agreed. Fixed.