IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Wed, 24 March 2010 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 6774C3A68CC for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.836, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Wu-8DIvC-eVN for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2B83A6A7A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (jack.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.73]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o2OJMaRI017347; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (www.obdev.at [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D025BCAEF0; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <4BAA3C2F.8090008@gont.com.ar>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Whole Lotta Love
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma26236-1"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:22:36 -0400
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20100324192236.2D025BCAEF0@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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: <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: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:22:29 -0000

It seems to me we (Joe, you and I) have converged to viewing the
TIME_WAIT truncation business as worth a work item, but the need or
desire for unpredictable timestamps seems to not be worthwhile.
Truncation requires monotonically increasing timestamps across
connections to be somehow ensured.  Seemingly that is such a mundane
requirement that we don't have to wade into the particulars of it in
this document.  Is this summary reasonable?  And, if so, is that OK with
everyone else?

allman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email