Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Fernando Gont wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Given how this issue has evolved, it might be useful to hold off on the
>> adoption decision to see the revised idea in its full context, i.e., in
>> a revision of the doc...
> 
> I don't follow what you mean by "how this issue has evolved". Some
> people asked for clarifications, and I have clarified those issues.

The 03 draft focused on creating an algorithm that prevented guess-based
attacks.

The discussion, as far as I can tell, has focused on the most peripheral
part of 03 - the use of TS to cut TIME_WAIT.

IMO, that's a sufficient change that we're no longer considering a mere
evolution of 03. The title, abstract, and most of the discussion will
change.

Other points need to be addressed, notably:

	- are TS values already sufficiently monotonic, or is
	an alg needed?

	- is per-socketpair state needed to support monotonicity?

	- interaction with SYN cookies

	- corner cases (when not monotonic, whether that can be
	known, when it's supported on only one side, etc.)

	- whether this depends on knowing which end will close the
	connection first at SYN time

I don't feel discussion on the mailing list is sufficient to consider
the entirety of this proposal, and not just whether it's possible, but
whether it's necessary.

Joe