Re: [tcpm] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-cheng-tcpm-fastopen-00.txt

["Scheffenegger, Richard" <[e-mail]>]

Richard Scheffenegger

> 
> However, I do not view flooding data on the second connection as
> important as reducing all latency by including data on the first
> connection (and all subsequent connections).  Much more bang for
> the buck!

Ever since browsers were allowed to use multiple connections, stepping
back from their use puts your session(s) at a disadvantage... this
behavior is questionable/discussionable, but never the less, fact.
 
> The fact that your proposal does not test whether SYN data works
> *before*
> flooding the data is a serious flaw, as it will in many cases actually
> increase the number of RTT.  First do no harm....

Yes, you loose either the data contents of the SYN-flagged segments (1
RTT for recovery), of the full initial flight (also 1 RTT, but more
troublesome to the network).

> I do not consider sacrificing reliability and security for performance
> a good trade.


> Moreover, this impedes ever adding any other TCP option ever again.
> This actively prevents inclusion of options approved by the IETF and
this
> group over the past few years.


What did I miss here again? The Cookie is 4..16 bytes in size - the
option 6..18; What prevents me from using smaller cookies when I want to
use other options too? (MSS+WS+SACK+TS has the very same issue today
also).

Best regards,
  Richard