Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

I'll update the doc accordingly.

I had also been thinking of SACK not being as limited in its use of 
space, nor MPTCP.

Joe

On 5/30/2014 10:13 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> John,
>
> We needed to lose 7B and we've lost 8B.
> So (SACK + MPTCP + TCP-AO + widespread basic options, incl TCPtimestamp)
> do fit in a SYN, therefore the example in the draft is valid.
>
> However, as everyone has pointed out, jubilation may be short-lived. For
> instance, even now, people are working on a lower latency MPTCP that
> will need more option space.
>
> Thx.
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> At 15:14 30/05/2014, Christoph Paasch wrote:
>> On 30/05/14 - 13:50:44, John Leslie wrote:
>> > Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I was asking for an example of something useful that /can/ be done
>> with EDO.
>> > >
>> > > I'm sure you can come up with one. However, you have shown
>> > > conclusively that the example in the draft (SACK + MPTCP + TCP-AO),
>> > > when added to the widespread basic options, /cannot/ be done with
>> > > EDO, because it needs 7 more bytes of options than a SYN allows.
>> >
>> >    The claim that MPTCP needs 20 bytes in the SYN is getting on my
>> > nerves...
>> >
>> >    As I read RFC 6824, it seems pretty clear that the initial SYN calls
>> > for 12 bytes, not 20. It's the SYN-ACK that uses 20. Somebody please
>> > correct me if I'm reading this wrong.
>>
>> Indeed, it uses 12 bytes on both the SYN and the SYN/ACK.
>>
>> Only the third ACK carries 20 bytes.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christoph
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT