Re: [tcpm] Moving forward draft-touch-sne on independent stream?

Hi Joe,
Yes. I am very sorry for the confusion. I've read the draft before and I
don't have any objections to proceeding with this draft.
One minor comment I have is that the method described in the draft
is focusing on providing protection against wrapping.
But, I think it does not provide protection against duplicates from old
sessions.
I believe it is fine for TCP-AO, but it may need a bit more attention on
this point when it's used for other purposes.
--
Yoshi

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 1:30 PM touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>
wrote:

> Yoshi,
>
> I believe you are referring to draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-syn-ext-opt; I am
> awaiting WG decision on having that doc become an experimental WG doc.
>
> The query below is for the sequence number extension solution that
> primarily affects TCP-AO option implementations and other such uses of
> sequence numbers. The two docs are not related.
>
> The sequence number extension is example code; it need not be a standard.
>
> Joe
>
> —
> Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
>
> On Nov 29, 2021, at 12:28 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> This is just my opinion as an individual contributor.
> I prefer to discuss this draft in the WG more rather than publishing it as
> an IS.
> I think SYN option space extension is an important feature for TCP's
> future, so I think it would be better to have a standardized solution for
> it.
> Also, I don't see strong benefits to publish it for now.
> --
> Yoshi
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The conflict review is now in my inbox, and we will discuss it on
>> December 2nd. If there are any concerns about this, please say so
>> immediately.
>>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 1:05 PM Scharf, Michael <
>> Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Joe has submitted draft-touch-sne to the ISE asking for publication of
>>> an RFC on the Independent Stream. (Background: An RFC on Independent Stream
>>> is not an IETF standard.)
>>>
>>> Publication on independent stream would be possible provided that the
>>> document does not conflict with TCPM or other IETF work. An obvious
>>> alternative would be homing the document in TCPM (or TSVWG) as an official
>>> WG item - but this is not what is currently proposed.
>>>
>>> A link to the document is:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-touch-sne
>>>
>>> Note that the current header field "TCPM" would have to be replaced in
>>> the further publication process, as documents on the independent stream are
>>> not the outcome of an IETF WG.
>>>
>>> The TCPM chairs have reviewed draft-touch-sne. Our current understanding
>>> that there would be no harm caused by such an independent stream
>>> publication. As far as RFC 5925 is affected, we assume that an Errata would
>>> be possible and sufficient.
>>>
>>> Before we get back to the ISE regarding this document, we would like to
>>> cross-check whether our understanding is indeed the TCPM consensus:
>>>
>>> Are there any concerns inside the TCPM community regarding a publication
>>> of draft-touch-sne draft-touch-sne on independent stream? If so, please
>>> speak up!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> on behalf of all chairs
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
>