Re: [tcpm] timestamp options (was Re: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt)

"Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 26 May 2014 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC731A00B6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 03:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
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 EinqtsJtk5Ap for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 03:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoemail1.alcatel.com (hoemail1.alcatel.com [192.160.6.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3942C1A0092 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 03:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by hoemail1.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s4QA6Onr022862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 26 May 2014 05:06:25 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s4QA6NMT002515 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 May 2014 12:06:23 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.185]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:06:23 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] timestamp options (was Re: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHPeMY6BHtOWL7DHkmmOC47VuZhz5tSoFQw
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:06:22 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D305E00@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20140425221257.12559.43206.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2586_1398464386_535ADF82_2586_915_1_535ADF56.9050106@isi.edu> <CF8D8E25-E435-4199-8FD6-3F7066447292@iki.fi> <5363AF84.8090701@mti-systems.com> <5363B397.8090009@isi.edu> <CAO249yeyr5q21-=e6p5azwULOh1_jUsniZ6YPcDYd69av8MMYw@mail.gmail.com> <DCC98F94-EA74-4AAA-94AE-E399A405AF13@isi.edu> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D2CFE36@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20140503122950.GM44329@verdi> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D2D009E@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <201405221710.s4MHAY4S002037@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <537E3ACD.5000308@isi.edu> <537E48CE.8040704@mti-systems.com> <537E66A7.4080907@isi.edu> <201405231003.s4NA3PAB005137@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <537F7D91.10802@isi.edu> <F4BCB99F-6133-4F3C-BD5E-3369B979EB33@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <F4BCB99F-6133-4F3C-BD5E-3369B979EB33@netapp.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/sBYAOvlOrqmSCFxo2hElo29OeyE
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] timestamp options (was Re: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:06:34 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eggert, Lars
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:38 AM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: [tcpm] timestamp options (was Re: New Version Notification for
> draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2014-5-23, at 18:55, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> > Current total for SYN options in widespread concurrent use (as
> already described in sec 6.4):
> >
> > 	2	SACK permitted
> > 	10	timestamp
> > 	3	window scale
> > 	4	MSS
> > 	------------------
> > 	11 bytes
> 
> I think it was Mark Allman who questioned a while ago whether the
> benefits of the timestamp option are worth spending 10 bytes in every
> packet. (But I can't find the email now.)

And we have already had a long discussion on late enablement of timestamps. Given that we submitted 1323bis in the meantime, I actually think we could spend some cycles on saving those 10B from SYNs (if there was agreement that it is doable). 

Michael (chair hat off)