Re: [tcpm] TCP Long Options

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of Adam Langley
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:28 PM
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> It might be worth reviewing the discussion on the TCP-LO when it was
>>> previously presented, and provide a summary to the group as 
>> to whether
>>> anything has changed.
 >>
>> Good point, although I am probably omitting salient points which I
>> missed when reviewing the archives:
>>
>> ...
>>
> 
> 
> Based on my memory, Adam's summary is pretty accurate.  In 2005, the
> reason that Bob Braden cited to me for not publishing the previous
> version of this draft as Experimental was:

...
> I guess the real problem was that the TCPM group didn't ever get
> consensus that working on any long options mechanism was important,
> so it never got done as a WG item, and it couldn't be done as an
> independent submission RFC because TCP is a core protocol....

I'm recalling that no mechanism was ever developed that was backward 
compatible with legacy TCP implementations, i.e., that "did the right 
thing" for SYNs with long options. Doing well for other segments is 
somewhat moot if SYNs cannot be extended, because space is most critical 
for them.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm