Re: [tcpm] 1323 & TCP MSS in Appendix A

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Fri, 15 February 2008 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBB63A6BE8; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:22:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.271
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.834, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qKtfQqkKLUfI; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82AB3A6BAB; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:22:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A813A6BAB for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:22:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uh8T-uwTd4VE for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FFC3A6B5E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2008 00:23:44 +0100
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1FNNhsP028296; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:23:43 +0100
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1FNNcvn018895; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:23:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:23:37 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:23:20 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804B70C05@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <25C477DF-381D-46E7-BF8F-05461B3FCC56@windriver.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] 1323 & TCP MSS in Appendix A
Thread-Index: AchwIJjhTF6TLgc6T+m2RhCBH5zNxgAA1l0w
References: <25C477DF-381D-46E7-BF8F-05461B3FCC56@windriver.com>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: "David Borman" <david.borman@windriver.com>, <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2008 23:23:37.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA7DA0E0:01C87029]
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 1323 & TCP MSS in Appendix A
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Hi David,

I am not sure which way is better and I don't have issues either way,
but I'll bite...

I think having a separate document which explains the pro's and con's of
accounting the the options in the advertised MSS, clarifying the right
approach sounds good. Another point in favour of a separate doc is that
TCP MSS description probably looks out of place in RFC 1323 which mainly
talks about high performance TCP options. I do agree, that having larger
MSS results in better TCP throughput and performance though :-) 

-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of David Borman
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:16 PM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: [tcpm] 1323 & TCP MSS in Appendix A
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In Chicago we discussed moving the description of the TCP MSS 
> option out of Appendix A and into a separate document.  I 
> don't recall coming  
> to a decision, I think we were going to take it to the 
> mailing list.   
> So, here's the question:
> 
> Should I take the description of the TCP MSS option out of 
> Appendix A and put it into a separate draft, or should we 
> just leave it in the revision for 1323?
> 
> I believe the argument for moving it out into a separate 
> document was that this is an important point the implementors 
> continue to get wrong, so pulling it out into a separate 
> document will bring more visibility.
> 
> My personal opinion is that not that strong, I'd be fine with 
> leaving it in 1323.bis, and also fine with moving it to its 
> own draft document.
> 
> 			-David Borman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm