Re: [tcpm] Milestones changed for tcpm WG

Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 04:10 UTC

Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@gmail.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 3554E3A231E; Mon, 3 May 2021 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6wxLbtbpAmdm; Mon, 3 May 2021 21:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf35.google.com (mail-qv1-xf35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (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 56E913A231C; Mon, 3 May 2021 21:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf35.google.com with SMTP id jm10so3807497qvb.5; Mon, 03 May 2021 21:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ue7RAfK4ScdkAU6uanSZTlSdR74D8q70iC8EVSGrPfI=; b=WO6kxHdRcBWWPu+XkC5fiSlCQAr9rZ346hDUS68hXXzHGLLdoztR6dmGlYQgmyvamr hAKszph4cPv0/SoPrPZzmc4XBTy7z4W/ku8zH3XSWQKzvK4GvIZvkI7s1FroiT7O8y0o 4/h27w6+AF0Hg2jLWDmtUCT8yW4whnDqtgjP+hjwgleUkJC8MSvwx17/2KbjXoaUqPxR QdzIxitvIuCVzhjhwq5qoSV1z5kwlnp9rXtKcn5N1Ay4Cd60YJUvEGavkMjPkpquhE3Y mY1knOVEKY5IJqIalKic/Tyj387ne7Y0hTluGTXfNXGrhKi4x1LxKJqcnhNgk1MX42cs qqUg==
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=Ue7RAfK4ScdkAU6uanSZTlSdR74D8q70iC8EVSGrPfI=; b=bRvLofJ9C2vv9Grbq/n7gB7C8kQIoPCDp+TRRlh1vvujQz93hH9dCv8jJJsN8kPLuc w5fTSqcVxa8dlWnmMnpY1KfAIlP1ZIRKd6atpCMONcaXmqc9Gv3PZpdAUxekrGfMXHnB nv5/JOLqUHPtV9XWF3HaaWS8ZITFygGRzYb+4eMFJ5Lap03sT+BXu+igGAQqnF8SH7rF QvZVuYcSE8q/tFPxeFHNQD22+OQWWGkbvWxi7utnfZovnseYGdKICnyEI7LZp+RsqccO I+XG/gVg84H7woLbHoKJlQwVO21xYIBltNt0yU1JsnUOZfoPQ+J8PNEiYy5IEDcgiPNu ukxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331eYrkxXFoT+oK4KraEXa8GLZMcS2MTn8xrFzGqhZtsYMtbdm7 3BSSjBJZ4Ytsan9Zx76OUCcoQMXdSgZPkVZ8PJYH09JL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxxJ4OShV778U2/4DjFjxOUw4xQnt25fDi+DVu+WGACFQDicaaWzRUrteiFYRofeDF5yM+sNQcmcoDRGvYA9rM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:180b:: with SMTP id o11mr10365518qvw.22.1620101422711; Mon, 03 May 2021 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161296020545.28489.5614088363628035666@ietfa.amsl.com> <043F495B-53A1-491A-906B-DAF6F5369F9E@strayalpha.com> <CAAK044Sc=pG9u55sJ+ywhTGUTyLR76hP+8VPa=KNSO=CNAM5JQ@mail.gmail.com> <FA9A9813-2FD6-41AB-A0CE-585F383BE043@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <FA9A9813-2FD6-41AB-A0CE-585F383BE043@strayalpha.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 21:10:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAK044RYPFaZU+X0GHFJksjbP0ub2WTZnLzv1RPzE4O5tn9sOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd05d605c17941ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/SQOLRNrBuoixJSN7RUMOuCt6bCA>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Milestones changed for tcpm WG
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 04:10:30 -0000

Hi Joe,

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:06 AM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:

> Hi, Yoshi,
>
> On May 2, 2021, at 11:31 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up again.
> In my understanding, there was no clear consensus on the interactions with
> TSO yet. Or, have we settled?
>
>
> I don’t understand what “consensus” would mean.
>
> TSO isn’t a standard; it’s an implementation, i.e., which ought to follow
> the TCP standards.
>
> Nothing we’re doing deviates from how standards-compliant implementations
> handle options. However, if an implementation incorrectly ignores unknown
> options, then it would could be problematic for this approach, as well as
> others.
>
> I thought you'll update the draft for this.
>
>
> I’m not sure what to say about this issue - do you want me to point out
> the issue with TSO sometimes causing problems because it’s out of spec?
>
> If so, I can do that.
>
>
I think that would be helpful for the doc. But, I also think this doc
should have a clear vision on the interaction with TSO beforehand.
I think we should have a consensus on this point such as:

* EDO should not be used with TSO
* It's fine to use EDO with TSO in any circumstances.
* it's fine to use EDO with TSO under a certain conditions
* The draft does not need to specify anything for TSO as it's out of scope
of the doc.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi