Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01.txt
Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 16 July 2008 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99113A68EA; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FA13A68EA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZIjbHkvrkek for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D093A683F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (68.sub-75-208-144.myvzw.com [75.208.144.68]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6GNDfXh002891 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <487E809C.7090608@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:13:32 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
References: <20080714234502.AC4793A69F4@core3.amsl.com> <396556a20807151736k35564e19h9fc6699e489c94fb@mail.gmail.com> <396556a20807161040s21a6a081i326af08add5d7f4e@mail.gmail.com> <487E6475.30107@isi.edu> <396556a20807161454g14346470g89ce7d87ff4379c9@mail.gmail.com> <487E7859.3090409@isi.edu> <396556a20807161609x455948f8qa40414799b64de72@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <396556a20807161609x455948f8qa40414799b64de72@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0941871425=="
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Adam Langley wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote: >> Both of these seem strange. They end up making the end of the option align, >> but disturb the front of the option. Why don't they pad at the end? > > So here's my hypothesis (and it's only a guess really): > > It's good to write in 32-bit words for speed reasons. Also, some > architectures make writing non-aligned 32-bit words hard. Now, > consider the SACK and timestamp options, you want to write a 32-bit > header followed by a payload (2 32-bit words for timestamp and 2*n > words for SACK). So you want the payload to be 32-bit aligned for both > writing and reading. That makes sense, but putting the pad at the beginning of every option vs. at the end of that option makes no sense AFIACT. (putting the pad for each option is inefficient, esp. since options aren't all that big a space and need to be byte-parsed anyway). Joe
_______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01… Internet-Drafts
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… touch
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-op… Joe Touch