Re: [tcpm] TCP Long Options

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <> Mon, 07 July 2008 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1386F3A695E; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1853A6948 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4jacUlJrz6-E for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5513A681C for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987EA3281B8; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:58:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m67IwSHA019041; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:58:28 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:58:28 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:58:42 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] TCP Long Options
Thread-Index: AcjbqDxYikw807+KSPevT7OwgdvH3AEuH1Ow
References: <><> <>
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <>
To: Adam Langley <>, Joe Touch <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2008 18:58:28.0471 (UTC) FILETIME=[71254070:01C8E063]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.7160:2.4.4, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2008-07-07_04:2008-07-07, 2008-07-07, 2008-07-07 signatures=0
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Long Options
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On 
>Behalf Of Adam Langley
>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:28 PM
>On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Joe Touch <> wrote:
>> It might be worth reviewing the discussion on the TCP-LO when it was
>> previously presented, and provide a summary to the group as 
>to whether
>> anything has changed.
>Good point, although I am probably omitting salient points which I
>missed when reviewing the archives:
> ...

Based on my memory, Adam's summary is pretty accurate.  In 2005, the
reason that Bob Braden cited to me for not publishing the previous
version of this draft as Experimental was:

> Basically, the critical fact here is that TCP is a core protocol for
> the Internet, so any changes to it should go through the IETF process.
> We understand that there are competing proposals, and TCP does not
> to be an area where competition is desirable.  Experimental
> implementations of your proposal would probably not be a good idea.

I guess the real problem was that the TCPM group didn't ever get
consensus that working on any long options mechanism was important,
so it never got done as a WG item, and it couldn't be done as an
independent submission RFC because TCP is a core protocol.  Thus,
4 years later, it is still not done, and I still get email every
few months from people that stumble upon the draft and want to use
it to enable some other experimental modification that requires a
really long option or two.  I think this is what happened with Adam.
He was working on another project, ran across the previous version
of the TCP Long Options draft, and discovered it was what he had been

In my personal opinion, it's a good idea to have some way to do
long options (any way, not necessarily even this draft) that's
at least published Experimental (off by default), simply because
different groups of people keep thinking they need long options.  I
think that's the point that the WG didn't have consensus on in the
past, and may or may not still lack.

tcpm mailing list