[tcpm] call for feedback on SYN-EXT-OPT draft

Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 April 2022 07:27 UTC

Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00363A0CAA for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PHIUV_C7ybL4 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57B3A3A0CE1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id t15so4771077oie.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=inN/yCRnl6hSaMnIWnSfgV4z3N7P0Pw2Y/MOnsaQOPE=; b=gpyJKGFq+am5hbnFILEg+Ue1HtoA5PnJwFrsF+Z4dg0Z8HgtjbrzPNt+troyAvjd4h qTcyg4L4Wb6VKDwLe46CySFaPPCFWgYh0DohzAEJxZRklHZ3uMs25Y54M5AUs7Ec8wBG 2e/uWOEwAcfD9Ivmq5hSMTOiBIoFOWPZryuYucwfO5HjKzRdzqwxFsMCQ+RBqpQBOIOE JSWAR7BuQRGLvGn0FK23DX1WXdqw9gYnCeNaAppTBZgwTPdsXkpbd4GaxxdbiMftSCoB 9Jpiez2V6kaZkF13pFoNEEv6UUmADGFDGa+kE6LH6dmribAh9uSBtiwZfpWqRIF4i7Ad tqHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=inN/yCRnl6hSaMnIWnSfgV4z3N7P0Pw2Y/MOnsaQOPE=; b=AgUvC5DtiwjpVt9PljjdaOVdvon0K0vLoTI7HUp4pC7Q37ox22StqghXXR0jeHabiQ SGl++I5pXa0pNqzk+ymavuQ6C5K5nj1FZw4RkKt6KHtAjzwufMvH/s1PG9l9GrnH3cFk wx9/xU5jF1EjSFN7qTnHSJbhsX1Ug8ztroXF5CvKXBxAwQrT6bP6u0OGW/Rk6K0n6UY/ T56xQFBNV7whVK8Fug1lWEe7qT4xtuXNoCFYFQ7rfoMbmvmDI7tMHFRfvXVVFDstw5hn SM4fl83V55PgpK8hAhk9JMbM0rvzhA9rnof3BpT5x4uTCYGyoPRJGSvkCl82rl2w4cK/ gBHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53004iFKrHWfD58t2QFLPZ3NpLqodBMHOlJjJQguVbqJWxQHudEX UN5YoCKXsOJtY61O+x/djlO2Xf8k8IselrAAZfswFWY31AM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyocx9MB3csgSKmfNTku1skISwZtm6XH2B2ROPzKUK25o25HPkgjdxjh50T2H+ScYmL5zo6AqAI9bK8YbLrOVU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:148f:b0:2fa:767d:3c86 with SMTP id e15-20020a056808148f00b002fa767d3c86mr3635297oiw.198.1650526049322; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0FF01EB8-C286-481D-9694-673DC3C59C7A@strayalpha.com> <96c57846-bb58-d186-82a1-dac649370602@mti-systems.com> <0102C65C-1847-4DD6-8624-50C25E1A2AD2@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <0102C65C-1847-4DD6-8624-50C25E1A2AD2@strayalpha.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:27:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAK044SXa2+Abj-Ca3KhLE1oOH9KQ8U0RLsKKQ6eXCQpFpoEag@mail.gmail.com>
To: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dccaea05dd250ae8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/LLK6NXNuGhxPaiejbUjzyM0fyIQ>
Subject: [tcpm] call for feedback on SYN-EXT-OPT draft
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:27:35 -0000

Hi folks,

As we have discussed in the last WG meeting, we need more comments to think
about how to proceed with draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-syn-ext-opt
So, we really appreciate your feedback on this.  If you have any questions,
comments, please send them to the list.

BTW, I have one question on this draft. I think I've seen some folks have
tried to implement EDO before, but how about this draft?
Because sending and receiving OOB packets as additional SYN packets sounds
a bit tricky to implement, I think it'll be great if someone has an
implementation report.
I am also wondering if some folks have some ideas on how it is safe to use
OOB packets over middleboxes.


On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>

> Hi, all,
> I’d like to request:
> a) WGLC for EDO
> b) some sort of WG decision on whether to adopt it as experimental (and,
> AFAICT, go to WGLC, given we’re already been around the block with it) or
> give me the go-ahead to submit it as individual experimental
> Both drafts are active through April, so I’ll hold on re-issuing until (b).
> Thanks,
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
> On Oct 12, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, touch@strayalpha.com wrote:
> - are there any open issues or pending suggestions to TCP EDO to prepare
> it for last call?
> I think it's in good shape for a last call.  It's stable and addresses all
> of the feedback to date, aside from greater implementation and field
> experience.  At the moment, it seems like QUIC has solved the burning need
> we had for TCP options space, by attracting all the work that would
> normally need more options. However, after many years of discussion about
> how to handle this for TCP, and many candidates, the EDO approach was the
> one the working group was able to get consensus around, and we really
> should wrap up and publish it, IMHO.
> - would the WG like to adopt SYN-EXT-OPT as experimental as well or would
> it be preferred (and OK) to submit this as individual/experimental if not?
> Either approach is fine with me, and I prefer either of them rather than
> not advancing anything.  I would be willing to contribute reviews for
> either path.
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm