Re: [tcpm] RFC 1323: Timestamps option

> I assume this means that one would turn timestamps on when starting a
> bulk transfer on the connection (?).
> 
> If so I'm not sure the space we'd be saving would be worth the
> additional complexity: For most application protocols usually employed
> for bulk transfers, the bulk transfer is preceded by only a few
> packets (to establish the TCP connection and send the application
> request). So option space would be saved in only a few segments.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> Also, in order to enable timestamps midstream, I guess applications
> should perform a call to setsockopt() or the like? If so, this require
> specification of the corresponding socket option, would require
> applications to be modified, and we would also requier us to agree on
> "what the option should default to", etc.

My view is that the application would not have to be involved.  The app
is not involved in whether to use timestamps or not right now.  (Setting
the socket buffer quite large could be seen as a proxy of this, I
suppose.)  In any case, I don't think you need to worry about knowing a
file is big or not.  In order to need TS for PAWS you have to send 4GB
of data (i.e., wrap).  It should be easy enough to turn TS on after 3GB
or something.  (It really isn't the amount of data being sent, it is the
data rate that PAWS is protecting against and so you could come up with
a better test than simply testing the number of bytes sent---my point is
that without actually wrapping we don't have to worry about TS for
PAWS.)

allman