IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP EDO and SYN-EXT-OPT finalization - request for discussion

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 22 October 2022 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02D2C14F74E; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 16:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.326 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, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQEgGBGWU6IX; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 16:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-1.web-hosting.com (server217-1.web-hosting.com [198.54.114.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EA4CC14F749; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 16:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; 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=LmEwxY6CApJ70ekA5eNMMm/z5BSW2t1kIhaO5FqpUuo=; b=Btx49pxfkK7j/8PL1Y+MAM99Vd GgGD8TQe0HQKVdnR8Tfo4/pNL+3soDyMf2Mics3jCLexMI4l8NnJFpI2zEB+yVkMq3Y1+taLX+Fvm V1B1ZqBi+A29hW7AVMtEzRmYTaM2p2+ddQ6DERwlCR/QtSfTuI1kntb3VLHHBJbD3cIibRFBpdjWv JtOoHShKUy4cUghYBMBj2dJMqTt1qCvCF7zcEuLi/FI3yVq2mfK/KsNZ6Dsw+quy/DHziZVGElpEI /ctHORkxN3jEIN/1h+j9xj3Ck5rFryaovzneFOZGittnRQ81sOrawPcHSGxLvAuHkMzgMP2AGe+vo TkM6ia8g==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:50049 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1omNra-005NJA-Sv; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 19:25:16 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49F0F96E-5FF5-4949-A46D-664B9D7DC0B7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <0102C65C-1847-4DD6-8624-50C25E1A2AD2@strayalpha.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 16:25:10 -0700
Cc: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <4CDA7158-89EA-4833-9636-74595E96F739@strayalpha.com>
References: <0FF01EB8-C286-481D-9694-673DC3C59C7A@strayalpha.com> <96c57846-bb58-d186-82a1-dac649370602@mti-systems.com> <0102C65C-1847-4DD6-8624-50C25E1A2AD2@strayalpha.com>
To: tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ulLGZCCHS0fxtX5DvkZo-5RzmXU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP EDO and SYN-EXT-OPT finalization - request for discussion
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 23:25:23 -0000

FYI - both docs have been updated.

The EDO doc includes some long-pending changes based on feedback from Michael Scharf, regarding TSO. It should be ready for WGLC.

Joe

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

> On Mar 4, 2022, at 11:05 AM, touch@strayalpha.com 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 <wes@mti-systems.com <mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com> 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@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email