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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Yoshi, et al,

I have just refreshed the draft (updated references and version number). IMO, it remains useful as describing both previously the issues with previously proposed ways extending the SYN option space and proposing one of the only ways that remains potentially possible.  

Can you please let me know if we can proceed with publishing this as experimental within the WG or if need to explore publication in another stream?

Thank you,

Joe
—
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Apr 21, 2022, at 3:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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 We had done some tests when the draft was submitted, but that project is no longer active.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.
> 
> Joe
> 
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com/>
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2022, at 12:27 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com/>
>> 
>>> On Oct 12, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm