Re: [tcpm] Ref to timestamp negotiation draft (expired)
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Wed, 16 November 2016 09:55 UTC
Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.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 5A3CA129664 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:55:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 qiP8Bc5W15BF for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93EA129695 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id z62so54904076oiz.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:55:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AIam0LC8TMzo/dVVYwF2plxsyp8qLbRBmKw5osJw9/Y=; b=Z/z53P8fb1n98+cejI7/mFqye6awa9qusxvx8UFzT+QOdKCPziu4vRF2n0oG8cqkpb gakOdAkz/+TC9+YqxpNpoU96Sihrp96Xw2zqKiOivdQrWQeNFsE9I3JKSvp2fbtggY+b KVdI35+XFXsZPnfoFuFMQ3WzNAuBOkei67J8sg7MNb7EgtgipUXws9S6e37DNwkfABVk TQIbf9EzqSxDZzG/ugCFQ/ShXFyi1puqkSpb18Tpz9ZdsEMzZTSSenqCLq7j0F505ZWP tYGP0XbdOpq9y1GZmhgd9Ko6HFNVi9L4An7cXY6eTnXDR1PdTGSw53d+co+j3gg4ulAV a+4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AIam0LC8TMzo/dVVYwF2plxsyp8qLbRBmKw5osJw9/Y=; b=CrzcIfJDb2NWPBAUMNOZ+r1n2ACSC2JWzmEYn4bpt0vhz9rGhncV8ETSfIXLA/as2q tagrhAdqzHr9VBqTb54X94+DZ/YtnO0ZpJR2x3fKnRad897g+bdUcji762iNXwUBGdFs V8UTnrqyvUNlC68H4UTOAGGVoj1Nnl4TOlcqnNUpNw1O6LiWRoQZ2JnbP6q4fPqICaIF WSQhzVUXJ5aTR85Bm3p4ZqS64HLWCziEjDNhAJMupFexyi/Ite4TATjr53GEqME01kSs 9dUMT4k/GaW2rwxQA5583kvdZFzzTpevz6OP2GV1aJ7P7GBePlzfDrxwTjikgBWFgDen 1WlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveg7GjBVMobWC/2cJLxFhiA75x0ZIK9Ca1yZD/bpgTrWYJv0dFRvXHuCeGl8h4sybvx0cQToEcB8ypWPzCY
X-Received: by 10.202.79.203 with SMTP id d194mr1431022oib.46.1479290146838; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:55:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.199.17 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:55:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <67dbb3ef-4671-8b91-fc51-538e8c890544@bobbriscoe.net>
References: <67dbb3ef-4671-8b91-fc51-538e8c890544@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:55:16 +0900
Message-ID: <CADVnQy=6-8QZqYqDkwWwrD1DXOs70da7852JAxVPS-N=WHcapw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d816eb917c10541681376"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/61_tZErKgx4oWT36J-EY8apPQLA>
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Ref to timestamp negotiation draft (expired)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 16 Nov 2016 09:55:49 -0000
Great. Thanks, Bob. We'll take a look at these... neal On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote: > Neil, [re-sending from correct address, so it is acceptable to the tcpm > list] > > As promised in the discussion just now about your timer negotiation talk > in tcpm, here's the previous draft on a similar subject: > Additional negotiation in the TCP Timestamp Option field during the TCP > handshake > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-timestamp-negotiation-05> > > This was originally prompted by the research here (see section 3.1 for the > timestamp discussion), which you might also be interested in: > Chirping for Congestion Control - Implementation Feasibility > <http://www.bobbriscoe.net/pubs.html#chirp_impl> > > > > Bob > > PS. I can recommend a good search engine to find stuff like this :) > > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > >
- [tcpm] Ref to timestamp negotiation draft (expire… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] Ref to timestamp negotiation draft (ex… Neal Cardwell