Re: [tcpm] TCP EDO and SYN-EXT-OPT finalization - request for discussion

Wesley Eddy <> Tue, 12 October 2021 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CAC3A0787 for <>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y0-judG_aQI8 for <>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 379283A07CC for <>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z15so387892qvj.7 for <>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kyRY6QpEP5ckcB9UZm+CYiVU3SsWp6tq1x1tVh8785M=; b=dN5jLorqzYSFL17FdcWGO/HKswxejB9hdTEzeS4IUntUlev3aoTCaXUneEhs41Q9/u ep+uEfyFdz9CRtUHlXmxlx6PYJqPxOIMZ0JYxVB7zWFGTnhPUm6Jew3M94i4nij3U7vX u1I/ZFMrsta27zSqyFmJ6bWvUlxHUgzVfUa/qfktTYufjGePf78gwsmCDRColTQQo7Vo ENZbULQ7B/IJKvXZ5CT4jaSSpfXksfqnmQOBIhr3Q58d6p2+2Tt8U5xh0V7RY4MMKoCV k9gLH0nr/mF8qcbCea4aenhVSTN77Er90z4am2iEnpRtMMGYNhKfFbq+7XszgVzn95aj w0Ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kyRY6QpEP5ckcB9UZm+CYiVU3SsWp6tq1x1tVh8785M=; b=W+ae+Lo0SmX3MRFG6hmXHcuc3dn6Qu6/XgkuZ9BRPzqLH48WiY9Akx6nf2Qra99l9A q+Z1yLU6G7whpJsC/GUaewd5O/B9vXbazzfASC5OuRzS2UzVoUuCHFpyQYmAteXLojqP yXHpjIthFKI+PGzesoQLQyF8si8giymF79uzZjZF4ULr2rlsIpL6vcSrWiZ44Fm1Sxyd 5Rvxs1CUjBAUlk5wpojr1JQ6+raq/4YDJKg1kMQfvVDaNWRMKZHVqsyP4RMq/GN02hbI Iu1L+GF3ceHZBVDyjJTc60yveaWypVW5ERhEVkB8Fv+pYii80sA5PyjrQ+gYVLJLQ1mE nOrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306jhzs36lDex3vsCFEKWTBPGd+2vj9z6375kUjWvXZdRXmjqja xP9jOVzBjD2mjhBPBchnSKFTZQxUXQSdUA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGU49lawlDNpJOKOin+/fPXMhYnS3kc2USw4h3+x7jeRlzFOQG0Gu0XXy0frnnPiXP0pjFDw==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4ab1:: with SMTP id i17mr20865201qvx.19.1634069241651; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 14sm1275039qtp.97.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:07:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "" <>, tcpm <>
References: <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP EDO and SYN-EXT-OPT finalization - request for discussion
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: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:07:28 -0000

On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, wrote:
> - are there any open issues or pending suggestions to TCP EDO to 
> prepare it for last call?
I think it's in good shape for a last call.  It's stable and addresses 
all of the feedback to date, aside from greater implementation and field 
experience.  At the moment, it seems like QUIC has solved the burning 
need we had for TCP options space, by attracting all the work that would 
normally need more options. However, after many years of discussion 
about how to handle this for TCP, and many candidates, the EDO approach 
was the one the working group was able to get consensus around, and we 
really should wrap up and publish it, IMHO.

> - would the WG like to adopt SYN-EXT-OPT as experimental as well or 
> would it be preferred (and OK) to submit this as 
> individual/experimental if not?
Either approach is fine with me, and I prefer either of them rather than 
not advancing anything.  I would be willing to contribute reviews for 
either path.