Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-nishida-tcpm-agg-syn-ext-00.txt

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard,

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:49 PM Scheffenegger, Richard <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> Still, without additional constraints my simplistic reading of how the
> GID value mapping to groups doesn't seem to address such collisions
> entirely..
>
> Also, some options are not necessarily negotiated, but only indicated -
> thus a constraint that corresponding bits of the group may only be set
> in a <SYN,ACK>, when they where present in the <SYN> is not sufficient.
>
> One constraint I could come up with would be to require  the server to
> reflect back "empty" (all zero option flags) blocks received from the
> client, in case a bitstream collision would otherwise happen
>
>
> e.g. client wants to signal option flag 7 of group 2, while server wants
> to send back option flag 7 of group 1 (but not flag 7 of group 2), the
> current draft would allow a "valid" exchange that looks like a reflection.
>
> With the above, additional constraint, the server would have to return
> an all-zero block for group 2 also, and may NOT skip over that...
>

I see your points. Thanks for pointing out an interesting case.

In such case, I might want to use the extension block (GID=3 in SYN, GID=0
in SYN/ACK) defined in the draft.
If server wants to send group IDs that didn't exist in the agg option in
SYN, it needs to attach an extension block as well.

So, in your case, sender sends back GID=1 with flag 7 and GID=3 with a
certain bit on (TBD).
I think this can be used as a proof that this is not a reflection.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi