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

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the clarification.
As far as I read the draft, I guess the summaries for EDO with TSO are
something like this. Is this correct?

1: EDO can live with TSO adopters if they don't coalesce nor split the
segments with unknown options. If not, they need to be updated.
2: This means when EDO is used in a connection, TSO will be disabled for
the connection as EDO option must be placed in all segments
3: EDO can identify wrong TSO behavior if it uses EDO option with segment
length, but cannot with EDO option with simple variant
4: If TSO-enabled adopters support EDO, TSO can be used with EDO without
disabling the feature.
5: in order to achieve 4:, one approach could be to standardize EDO.

--
Yoshi

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:45 AM [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Sure - the issue was clarifying the way in which EDO interacts with TCP
> segment offload (TSO). The diffs are at the end of section 9, as shown here:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-13.txt
>
> The goal is to be more clear that this is a bug in TSO that EDO adopters
> need to be on the lookout for.
>
> Joe
>
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
>
> On Oct 24, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for the update. Could you elaborate the changes a bit more? I am
> sorry that I missed what the feedback was.
> --
> Yoshi
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 4:25 PM [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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, [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
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, [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]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>>
>>
>