Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Hagen Paul Pfeifer <> Wed, 09 June 2010 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C813A6781 for <>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.351
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ynz+MfdX7a7t for <>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AF73A659B for <>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 02520F44129; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 22:00:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:00:53 +0200
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <>
Message-ID: <20100609200052.GB5338@nuttenaction>
References: <> <> <20100609173556.GA5338@nuttenaction> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Key-Id: 98350C22
X-Key-Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
X-GPG-Key: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver 98350C22
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:00:59 -0000

* | 2010-06-09 20:15:09 [+0100]:

>> TCP Alternate Checksum Options _can eventually_ useful in the future for
>> example Interplanetary TCP.

I read exactly the same number of papers where people analysed TCP and come to
the conclusion that TCP is suitable at general but timers must be adjusted to
meet the requirements, ok this statement is a little bit exaggerated, but I
cannot resist to post it. ;-) Anyway, I don't want to start a debate if TCP
is suitable for interplanetary communication. Be creative and think about
another environments where TCP may be adequate but the user simple require a
stronger checksum. My second example are therefore, attention: Sensor
Networks. ;-)

Lloyd, thank you for the in-deep elucidations!

My point was and is why to move a itself not defective nor overhauled RFC to
historic. But as Lars already pointed out that this does not affect already
existing implementations I am fine with it. I am general fine with Lars
postings, so consider it as a question, not a objection. ;-)

Best regards, Hagen