Re: [tcpm] call for feedback on SYN-EXT-OPT draft

"" <> Thu, 21 April 2022 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D646E3A0E2B for <>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.328
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfew8mqlfNfK for <>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F3B33A0E1D for <>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=VuX+4a2kPwnBznF7RhriVtYaGUpmbSeMfOlncHrssIM=; b=Sqhzb0LH6aLg5HLy6Y6LR6Mj9X 1BGnQEh5d37XVWvii0zh6Gh7oempM5GPBsUSNPHImRaHRpTZrJkRwVszusg2+v9uJ6ow9zeoM3h2Y KDrWySZ6iEiLkzXyBCWRQPjoPSUEc0bEuV/eYtKgJquiGTSN8HJ+5r+tgcOBACXbXfGX0LFLUptFB iDhD7KCm3kyIfC3qRQNgj8sOQRDKgY+CmeufH6xG115/WjvzVgNc1LSl5rzyx5aII2qXcZH9OBpo+ DeHA2/lZlzscXtKNw8z4EnHl/Ku4j/UbJnK9xpNyzsfYzhGoLVeB+YbJw8m0iuyZ6kz1gAdifDakx tTYEtLXA==;
Received: from ([]:55700 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <>) id 1nhf3k-00FGaU-1q; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:14:00 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7428F728-6D7C-43F3-B1FF-0805D609D618"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.\))
From: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:13:54 -0700
Cc: tcpm <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] call for feedback on SYN-EXT-OPT draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:14:11 -0000

Hi, Yoshi,

We had done some tests when the draft was submitted, but that project is no longer active.

Note that this is “if it works” safe, i.e., if the packet fails through a firewall or NAT, it simply means that the space in the SYN won’t be extensible.


Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist

> On Apr 21, 2022, at 12:27 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida <> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> As we have discussed in the last WG meeting, we need more comments to think about how to proceed with draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-syn-ext-opt
> So, we really appreciate your feedback on this.  If you have any questions, comments, please send them to the list.
> BTW, I have one question on this draft. I think I've seen some folks have tried to implement EDO before, but how about this draft?
> Because sending and receiving OOB packets as additional SYN packets sounds a bit tricky to implement, I think it'll be great if someone has an implementation report.
> I am also wondering if some folks have some ideas on how it is safe to use OOB packets over middleboxes.
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi 
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM <> < <>> wrote:
> Hi, all,
> I’d like to request:
> a) WGLC for EDO
> b) some sort of WG decision on whether to adopt it as experimental (and, AFAICT, go to WGLC, given we’re already been around the block with it) or give me the go-ahead to submit it as individual experimental
> Both drafts are active through April, so I’ll hold on re-issuing until (b).
> Thanks,
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> <>
>> On Oct 12, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Wesley Eddy < <>> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, <> wrote:
>>> - are there any open issues or pending suggestions to TCP EDO to prepare it for last call?
>> I think it's in good shape for a last call.  It's stable and addresses all of the feedback to date, aside from greater implementation and field experience.  At the moment, it seems like QUIC has solved the burning need we had for TCP options space, by attracting all the work that would normally need more options. However, after many years of discussion about how to handle this for TCP, and many candidates, the EDO approach was the one the working group was able to get consensus around, and we really should wrap up and publish it, IMHO.
>>> - would the WG like to adopt SYN-EXT-OPT as experimental as well or would it be preferred (and OK) to submit this as individual/experimental if not?
>> Either approach is fine with me, and I prefer either of them rather than not advancing anything.  I would be willing to contribute reviews for either path.
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> <>
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list