[tcpm] More option space on any segment: draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00 (was syn-op-sis-02)

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Mon, 20 October 2014 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B36F1A1A6D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 9QKcRvIstE6w for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubrelay-by-04.bt.com (hubrelay-by-04.bt.com [62.7.242.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C2D71A00CD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) by EVMHR04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:59:26 +0100
Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:59:29 +0100
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:58:30 +0100
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.111.109.250]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s9K0wQnS014207; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:58:27 +0100
Message-ID: <201410200058.s9K0wQnS014207@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:58:26 +0100
To: SCHARF Michael <Michael.SCHARF@alcatel-lucent.com>, "SAROLAHTI, Pasi" <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_2116089960==.ALT"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/DEhLlWFWNjz1a1z3DvpCQwxofFU
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: [tcpm] More option space on any segment: draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00 (was syn-op-sis-02)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:58:38 -0000

Chairs and list,

My individual draft has a new file-name (and title): 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00>inner-space-00
This is a major rev of 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tcpm-syn-op-sis-02>syn-op-sis-02, 
but I won't be using that name any more.
Sorry to confuse everyone by changing the name. But the old name was 
no longer relevant.

I believe the new Inner Space protocol could be a significant advance for TCP.

It should allow new TCP options to be introduced:
i) with minimal middlebox traversal problems;
ii) avoiding incremental deployment problems with pre-existing servers;
iii) without a round of handshaking delay
iv) without having to provide their own loss recovery and ordering mechanism
v) without arbitrary limits on available space.

I believe this could be a significant simplifying foundation over 
which tcpinc (TCP increased security) could be built. So I want to 
encourage folks on the list to read and criticise it with some 
urgency, because tcpinc is working to a fairly tight schedule.


I've been working on this fairly intensely in my 'spare' time over 
the last few weeks, working through all the possible interactions 
with middleboxes and other options, then simplifying and iterating 
through the checks again. I'm v happy with how it's turned out now.

It's intended for experimental status. Listening to the advice on the 
list, I've chosen a basic 'mandatory to implement' core, and included 
optional extensions in appendices.

I've also written-up an extensive Design Rationale section, because 
there's a lot of subtlety in it, even tho the core protocol looks v simple.

The appendices and the rationale make the doc v long (48pp). Sorry 
about that! But the core spec is actually still only 13pp.

Cheers



Bob

>From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>To: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>, "Bob J. Briscoe" <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
>Subject: New Version Notification for draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00.txt
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:59:03 -0700
>
>
>A new version of I-D, draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00.txt
>has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the
>IETF repository.
>
>Name:           draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space
>Revision:       00
>Title:          Inner Space for TCP Options
>Document date:  2014-10-19
>Group:          Individual Submission
>Pages:          45
>URL: 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00.txt
>Status: 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space/
>Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00
>
>
>Abstract:
>    This document describes an experimental method to extend the limited
>    space for control options in every segment of a TCP connection.  It
>    can use a dual handshake so that, from the very first SYN segment,
>    extra option space can immediately start to be used optimistically.
>    At the same time the dual handshake prevents a legacy server from
>    getting confused and sending the control options to the application
>    as user-data.  The dual handshake is only one strategy - a single
>    handshake will usually suffice once deployment has got started.  The
>    protocol is designed to traverse most known middleboxes including
>    connection splitters, because it sits wholly within the TCP Data.  It
>    also provides reliable ordered delivery for control options.
>    Therefore, it should allow new TCP options to be introduced i) with
>    minimal middlebox traversal problems; ii) avoiding incremental
>    deployment problems with pre-existing servers; iii) without an extra
>    round of handshaking delay iv) without having to provide its own loss
>    recovery and ordering mechanism and v) without arbitrary limits on
>    available space.
>
> 
>
>
>
>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
>The IETF Secretariat

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT