Re: [tcpm] SYN/ACK Payloads, draft 01

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 14 August 2008 20:14 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 860053A6872; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:14:22 -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 AF24F3A6872 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.997, 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 yefxHCdhNYoQ for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC7C3A6407 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7EKDQiY012167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48A491B9.3000209@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:12:41 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
References: <396556a20808111035s2b974233o1e9d3671e82e3350@mail.gmail.com> <48A36104.6000000@isi.edu> <396556a20808131605w2ccac3ceo21160401e4545c15@mail.gmail.com> <48A383F0.9030601@isi.edu> <396556a20808131827x1ab32b13yaa9358ac1a70c6ed@mail.gmail.com> <48A3C0B3.8050003@isi.edu> <396556a20808140940p63dec2d2ib3332b27da8260ae@mail.gmail.com> <48A465CC.8000402@isi.edu> <396556a20808141023s3abddc96u43b9e6e7898033ed@mail.gmail.com> <48A46BD3.4030408@isi.edu> <396556a20808141303k341599wfeef32d0841e9f76@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <396556a20808141303k341599wfeef32d0841e9f76@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] SYN/ACK Payloads, draft 01
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Adam Langley wrote:
| On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
|> OK. So why bother with an option at that point? Why does the user data
|> need to be different if the option is present?
|>
|> If the user data were not different, then this all boils down to a
|> change in the implementation of the API. The trouble is that you're
|> expecting a TCP option to change the *content* of the data stream, and
|> that seems bizarre to me.
|
| Because for server-speaks-first application protocols there's no
| problem. This is just for client-speaks-first protocols. For these
| protocols, had common stacks been able to send data in the SYN/ACK
| when they were being designed, then they might have ended up as
| server-speaks-first protocols. But they didn't for latency reasons.

Client-speaks-first puts data in the SYN, not the SYN-ACK. Or have you
got the roles reversed, as with FTP data connections?

| In order for them to take advantage of this they need to be able to
| signal their compliance somehow. There is, indeed, a cleanliness
| argument against such a option, but I'm arguing that it's worthwhile
| for backward compatibility reasons.
|
|> This is a big change - you're saying that if the payload fits, it goes
|> in the SYN-ACK. If not, *none* of it is sent in the SYN-ACK? Why?
|
| I'm saying that implementations have latitude here. If the passive
| open end wishes to ignore the client's option it may. Equally, it may
| echo it, but not include the data in the SYNACK if the MTU makes it
| troublesome. In that case, it needs to send it in the next packet as
| normal.

If the option is ignored, and you don't intend to change TCP semantics,
then the data - i.e., the hash or whatever - needs to be sent in the
next data packet.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkikkbgACgkQE5f5cImnZruy5gCfZvj6azlW6J5XITA9qESS0ovN
W7wAmwWpXEzT+gMsXWT5PgpnLQsJ6uDx
=mqEW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm