IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] More TCP option space in a SYN: draft-briscoe-tcpm-syn-op-sis-02

"Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 02 October 2014 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.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 B8F9D1A1A0A for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 II-eygxxlXKb for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373391A19EE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 2A225F1EB6FE2; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:28:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s92FSp86002133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:28:52 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.81]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:28:51 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] More TCP option space in a SYN: draft-briscoe-tcpm-syn-op-sis-02
Thread-Index: AQHP2N+vAX26V97X60WfyOqHqL1HjJwSDaMAgABPsQCAAK++AIAAUh6AgAmXTAA=
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:28:50 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16655B47@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <201409222045.s8MKjZdD002071@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <542344DA.9020905@isi.edu> <201409250956.s8P9uae9013452@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1409251716260.69041@ayourtch-mac> <201409251842.s8PIgUdQ015414@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1409260049040.69041@ayourtch-mac> <201409260957.s8Q9vmEd018560@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <20140926145037.GA82183@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20140926145037.GA82183@verdi>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/F12PMVHJ6bVqtOiOsp-cMNBnKVU
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] More TCP option space in a SYN: draft-briscoe-tcpm-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: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:28:57 -0000

>    I believe that much deserves to be settled _before_ tcpm-fastopen
> is published as an RFC. (NB that document currently has been approved
> for publication, but is waiting on a Point-Raised writeup.)

I don't think that this (good!) discussion should affect draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen. We explicitly decided that the existing TCP fast open spec shall be experimental.

I think this kind of discussion can be sorted out if / once we move fast open to PS. This almost certainly won't happen within quite a number of IETF meetings. Thus, we probably have enough time to fully understand and discuss the interaction with SYN option extension solutions.

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email