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

"" <> Fri, 04 March 2022 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC013A0E2D; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:05:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.327
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.327 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wglNnr_rZCMt; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFB523A0DD3; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:05:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=gmozoJoDMAJM6+yqxUmcTzr0C5rcoVRC3GEfFrwphNc=; b=DmUpykcutO7aJmAOas2aMomQoy jx2g4rt1AA0x73Ql7CFQmBIHnOHQcf60t0FifUid4lUzFjIB/0GN6AQjCG25aMm7GkiGXaBX9DXYe BVITlJtxE7DUdKfWzC9oycy2sxhrmljnQ5KdepYHsDfNSQWHvY1PwgjT3hOHWJEVLuO24bmAs1vCF vDueG7QrVOwHm4ohYRgIuvKACCOA0Rk0BzPlC5RQabn9ndhlyL3nc/fmRTCfd0kwCCHmSiAADkeTu 62pJVwA6v6Q+R8QMNb/4T6qC98YiFEnG1+R2L9PR3yyi8Dqgi2reJzMUVG+bzkJajQkEXGXCDuGKt nYSGrVFQ==;
Received: from ([]:53695 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1nQDFH-007glh-Hq; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 14:05:48 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EAF8DF8E-6189-4499-A637-19A03CDBD2B3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.\))
From: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 11:05:42 -0800
Cc: tcpm <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: tcpm-chairs <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP EDO and SYN-EXT-OPT finalization - request for discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:05:54 -0000

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).


Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Wesley Eddy <> wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 3:50 PM, 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