Re: [tcpm] 793bis ready to go?

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.com>
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 879D83A0D93 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 08:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBZvAvUV0Lf6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 4D5073A0D98 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 May 2021 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id b11-20020a7bc24b0000b0290148da0694ffso1602450wmj.2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 May 2021 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SXP8GxlxyNC8kbR99Y3R+1QZ+T6zlt/xmK0Aq99nB8Y=; b=rEUjY+TgUNAupVYsFeb4L98q7Fy9D22Gj6/ROuOziiRuD86BkW7ovABZ0WUHR5uEHz 09slH9ke1/XqdFkjhPlXHoUYVFTMgNy7WGhtdn2H9jNdZir1DCCk8u7Yjee7plUxdGeu NxZlVmA729WGrfhuRVF6SaTzo2V8b6qPiF6gQpJHMgFpI16Oe6Y1BSvjfFra+DsCZsJP UrkpJiIEyyPHOZT4xhYzFOkwnc5C9H8wIHMwmPfvr1p3+pocAtfg/G8rFTX+1k/DPEfG 2723aszax+zrKOSI8gnCTOZRlxdel6L0CN2Ny5C2pMuFAzhwAPcXy3p91/Xm1qujo1IY 6jfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SXP8GxlxyNC8kbR99Y3R+1QZ+T6zlt/xmK0Aq99nB8Y=; b=P+a++Gq5mxFz9VharV/7PV0qQ1Nk8G2zx5hiDy4RzdDw+zYcxk8NnXBIlkdCASKvZd QrhIm1A/uFCqhI1bmarT4vpdJZA/3oDsVxmBCBnxNahRNM+ur18tBabyelSKyWTPzLcu dd1TTjVi1XsailUZyjPz4p2UX4sEvLVE3qhaGTrq6eWutowKLK+PLpIPYOm3RyHXnpKB 3rhqDxVTl4z0NIsmjZusCezvT6VpmywDnKvPDoNWBT7L8HlWEHZYHFbonLx+K9hBgzIw E37Llr4gYIPGAmiJ2bLQrDH1ZOChKVNvIz78/zV81Tc+6MNEmaEFl9mBPpHCiUJ0Q1e0 tb+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NFNhGCpB0v9Mxl0wQEBo71lOZIY9uE5K8EBsZlalRsO3hmCdg cx20Bdt99RPPP1owlkZmLnsY8Vtr0pIWB9AwI2f5Mg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBMvf4wNckQkGNwk+kwMHJ1DBO4zELCgCDAVmVzetHMXIU/4aeVzPj5WmGgf0DbgNp69aXO/PcxSaiPiZGgYc=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b68b:: with SMTP id g133mr27151728wmf.127.1620143985117; Tue, 04 May 2021 08:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cd600644350847ef8415d21588d1e912@hs-esslingen.de> <CAK6E8=fs_EaMpAEmpV=7_ZwmtugN=1rnuxRjfY4zPxEiyp8NgA@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQym-W-KmR8ZN3sxSqyTBptU_tOm=u844b6-5xLRbmYtdiw@mail.gmail.com> <6D674614-847D-4600-9DE5-7FFD29043C7F@lurchi.franken.de> <8f556136c1e0409d9f88c4153dae070d@hs-esslingen.de> <38d316e7-c7f7-775d-131c-d7a0590197d8@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <38d316e7-c7f7-775d-131c-d7a0590197d8@mti-systems.com>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 08:59:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=dyY2Gv8dQkrNStz_swOVk61kyVvmnekOCKi1LDD6HX+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/MDo-aoi4UkX8ctAsWtOrMHFqDPs>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis ready to go?
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: Tue, 04 May 2021 15:59:54 -0000

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 7:32 PM Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/2021 3:58 AM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> I'd also be interested in more details. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with BSD.
>
> For what it is worth, RFC 1122 Section 4.2.3.6 "TCP Keep-Alives" states:
>
>             Keep-alive packets MUST only be sent when no data or
>             acknowledgement packets have been received for the
>             connection within an interval.
>
> So, the latter part of the sentence originates from RFC 1122.
>
> Could somebody comment on whether recent BSD stacks would deviate from the proposed text in 793bis? That would be an important insight!
>
>
> This is not answering your question about BSD, but just for reference, the change in that sentence came from consolidated review comments from Microsoft colleagues that was sent to the mailing list:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/rqHhtpqW3m0QikJnaz_4y-y7NyQ/
>
>
> Section 3.7.4
> "Keep-alive packets MUST only be sent when no data or acknowledgement
>    packets have been received for the connection within an interval
>    (MUST-26).
The latest draft looks good to me to publish. Thanks for the revisions!

>
> "
>
> It's important to call out an additional condition - that sends are not already outstanding. When a send is outstanding, it is retransmitted and serves as an implicit liveness check.
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm