IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Thu, 01 November 2018 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 A4CD912777C; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 pZtIe2QJHyDx; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A543129C6B; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5A725A15; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:47:41 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1541083661; bh=qmOHYklV5uJ5QfrfBlhFZYjA3HU/DGP3Ui+qxRv30yI=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=b9OUZsMsFcQE8SZzW7P1WgwON4mhZ3twGdjYKjTFYWuicxyNOlHXll+fbm+kGxK8S 0yv+ZpO58baBxVHP/RLiav8RBC3EEN6gX4RX3IsAqJJrb9Qf4nXw8kLea78jdG2mNn UpjA9YVbnRano8ESEY5OW2mJonkvaUxJP9wGScG0=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m12XlvZORKBQ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:47:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8101.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.29.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:47:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.25]) by rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:47:40 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
CC: "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] [Fwd: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.txt]
Thread-Index: AQHUX5OV8O3hLD7KpEaq0Dr7QoOm7KU1l8cAgAWG19A=
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 14:47:40 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D14760C@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <26ed385e2f00a41e717a9d4b4043f9b9.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <CAO249yf9bQbCY0iM4gkJbXhO-m=z2U1Vmp39ThkHjk-5xXMoMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO249yf9bQbCY0iM4gkJbXhO-m=z2U1Vmp39ThkHjk-5xXMoMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.29.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/axWnqFpR597mHaoIy6Q6VGBmkqY>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.txt]
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: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 14:47:48 -0000

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)."
 
>    "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.

And the document already explains the benefits of application-layer heartbeat messages (if applicable).

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email