Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-nishida-tcpm-agg-syn-ext-01.txt

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carles,

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree with 2 bit GID. It's the current
setting in the draft.
I will add some more discussions on this point in the next version.
--
Yoshi

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:07 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Yoshi,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> There are currently 22 option Kind numbers assigned by IANA (that are
> not obsoleted or temporary). There are also 14 ExID values assigned.
>
> A conservative approach would need to consider all possible
> combinations. It seems that this approach would require a 3-bit GID.
>
> However, probably only a (small?) subset of the possible TCP options
> would be used simultaneously, and therefore a 2-bit GID would appear
> to suffice.
>
> Would this make sense?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carles
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Carles,
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> > Yes, that's the point I have been wondering about.
> > I agree with your assessments. Do you have any thoughts on the best
> choice among them?
> > --
> > Yoshi
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 2:06 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Yoshi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your draft, and for taking into account the needs of a new
> >> experimental proposal such as the TARR option.
> >>
> >> Indeed, currently, 4 bytes is the minimum format size to announce
> >> support of an RFC 6994-conforming experimental TCP option. However, as
> >> you mention in your draft, the same information might be conveyed by
> >> using less bits.
> >>
> >> I've been thinking about whether the number of GID bits (i.e., 2 bits)
> >> is the best choice or not. My own conclusion is that it is, since:
> >>
> >> - Number of GID bits = 0 --> it does not allow to omit unused
> aggregated blocks.
> >> - Number of GID bits = 1 --> it would support only 14 options.
> >> - Number of GID bits = 3 --> it would support 40 options, which
> >> perhaps is not really necessary, and would add one bit of overhead per
> >> aggregated block.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Carles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi folks,
> >> >
> >> > I have submitted an updated version for aggregated option draft.
> >> > The main points of this version are the following, mainly to address
> Joe's comments.
> >> > - The draft contains now aggregated option only.  delay negotiation
> proposal has been removed and out of scope of the draft.
> >> > - The main target for aggregated option is a new experimental
> proposal such as TARR option while It is possible to aggregate existing
> options with some conditions,
> >> > It would be great if you could provide some feedback.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > --
> >> > Yoshi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 12:15 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>         Title           : Aggregated Option for SYN Option Space
> Extension
> >> >>         Author          : Yoshifumi Nishida
> >> >>   Filename        : draft-nishida-tcpm-agg-syn-ext-01.txt
> >> >>   Pages           : 9
> >> >>   Date            : 2022-10-23
> >> >>
> >> >> Abstract:
> >> >>    TCP option space is scarce resource as its max length is limited
> to
> >> >>    40 bytes.  This limitation becomes more significant in SYN
> segments
> >> >>    as all options used in a connection should be exchanged during SYN
> >> >>    negotiations.  This document proposes a new SYN option negotiation
> >> >>    scheme that can aggregate multiple TCP options in SYN segments
> into a
> >> >>    single option so that more options can be negotiate during 3 way
> >> >>    handshake.  With its simple design, the approach does not require
> >> >>    fundamental changes in TCP.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nishida-tcpm-agg-syn-ext/
> >> >>
> >> >> There is also an HTML version available at:
> >> >>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nishida-tcpm-agg-syn-ext-01.html
> >> >>
> >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nishida-tcpm-agg-syn-ext-01
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org:
> :internet-drafts
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> I-D-Announce mailing list
> >> >> [e-mail]
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >> >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >> >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > tcpm mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>