Re: [tcpm] Milestones changed for tcpm WG

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:06 AM Joseph Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Yoshi,
>
> On May 2, 2021, at 11:31 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]> 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