Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.txt]

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Caerles, Michael,

Thanks for the addressing the comments.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:47 AM Scharf, Michael <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Chiming in...
>
> > 3: Section 5.3
> >     CCN -> CNN?
> >
> >    "This overhead could be reduced by TCP Fast Open (TFO)"
> >
> > -> Yes, but the use of TLS is not mandatory in this draft. If an
> > implementation utilizes TFO, we might want to mention about app level
> > idempotency here.
>
> We could add the following two sentences from RFC 7413 at the end of the
> paragraph:
>
>   "However, TFO deviates from the standard TCP semantics, since the data
> in the SYN
>    could be replayed to an application in some rare circumstances.
> Applications
>    should not use TFO unless they can tolerate this issue, e.g., by using
> Transport
>    Layer Security (TLS)."
>

Works for me.

>
> >    "TCP keep-alive messages are not very useful to..."
> >
> > -> We don't need to discuss reducing the interval of keep-alive here?
>
> We could add the following sentence (again adapted from RFC 7413):
>
>   "Sending TCP keep-alive probes more frequently risks draining power on
> mobile
>   devices [MQXMZ11]."
>
> I am not sure how much more guidance we could give on picking an interval.
>

I agree. I think we don't need to talk about specific interval.
I just thought it would be good to mention it as this is one possible way
although it might not be a good approach in some cases.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi