IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] AccECN field order

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 27 January 2021 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 0A77E3A1176; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:27:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 f14GAc2eBJAB; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:27:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-2.web-hosting.com (server217-2.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E2C13A1174; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:27:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=q5UUw+QjJ1/A9mgMEEQM4yd6qWDyVok5qcRyOcj0Alk=; b=zEbYuUQbXX1eiHHWlIUPXjXQYD YtftwooxjHK9kIRpdS11uE1fY3C2GY/bVmDcJKLPhQpHeYJek2aVV7nOaEQ62gQ1o48RmoWIy6I5B jdKMVJmY2cWgLXjQmGtD0UUxWfesx2QgLWqRdM8VDB0qq3LM2xkbekzBszD1X9yP7O30Tsaa+f4RT 5B6ymjhbFO212H/SEBKLHBBYwKl5vWgWX0UL6VsCdEVyxEdetAPDjc/lArU2YgMdt/665K9XrZju/ xPG0BeTYzfnh6fJUY67E/nP0gXAhu73udunfd5g0NPXb7hbhYRH4gOalJGIfWMvCdfei9f629n3jG b8PftJnQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:51171 helo=[192.168.1.17]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1l4bUe-001JSx-NR; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 22:27:49 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A6CB682-8D99-48AE-A053-1685BA480BB3@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:27:44 -0800
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, "Scheffenegger, Richard" <Richard.Scheffenegger@netapp.com>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
Message-Id: <880A9E0C-FBC9-4ADC-A11D-C5D3FDDDCE14@strayalpha.com>
References: <2A6CB682-8D99-48AE-A053-1685BA480BB3@apple.com>
To: Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel@apple.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/OafbR32cl-z6KPb9J4ph_XC8-80>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] AccECN field order
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: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 03:27:54 -0000


> On Jan 26, 2021, at 6:56 PM, Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Where is this 1 byte? 
>> 
>> I thought we were talking TCP options. For SYNs and SYN/ACKs, the approach above violates RFC 793, which defines new TCP options as having both kind and length - that way, an endpoint can skip over options it doesn’t know.
>> 
>> For other segments, it defeats the point of not wanting to issue two codepoints, which is to conserve codepoints. Instead, it would effectively be assigning 64 codepoints to the same role. 
>> 
>> Both are not viable ways forward.
> 
> Yes, you are right.
> 
> Now, that I have re-read the discussion around this topic more, I don’t see the problem with L = 11 or L = 12 (with flag byte) as Acc ECN option length with two different code points.

Please see my note from 12/3/20, which shows how a single codepoints would suffice without increasing length. 

Joe

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status