IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options

Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Sat, 16 February 2013 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D0521F86AC for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:09:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.083
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.083 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.516, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jya6buicRCFO for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D34721F86A5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8027CD9314; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:09:09 +0100 (MET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id yTTxbUsYGUIc; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:09:09 +0100 (MET)
Received: from [10.0.27.106] (cust-integra-122-165.antanet.ch [80.75.122.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45277D9309; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:09:09 +0100 (MET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <511E92E9.6080709@isi.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:10:03 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D5114CD-D316-4A0A-AFE4-5A9129C6DD2B@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <511E92E9.6080709@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:09:16 -0000

hi Joe, all,

On 15 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> Here's what we need to know:
> 
> 1. do you agree with change (A)?

yes

> 2. do you agree with change (B)?

yes

> 3. do you agree with change (C)?
> 
> 	if so, which variant (i), (ii), (iii)?

yes. The value in our draft, in any case, is arbitrary and can be changed at this point with minimal experimental impact, so preserving existing values (at least from my viewpoint) isn't worth the relative inelegance of (ii).

On straight 16- vs 16-32 bit identifiers, I have noticed that scarcity in 16-bit number space often tends to be perceived quite early through the use of the space, so even if we say "no barrier to entry" now, the ability to expand to 32-bit numbers would make it more likely that assignments in this space remain zero-friction. So I'd say I prefer (iii) to (i).

Cheers,

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email