IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately-07.txt

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Sat, 10 November 2012 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590C321F88A8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:15:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Wa8-hzxj9mc for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.netapp.com (mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E7021F88A6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:15:12 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,749,1344236400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="224162569"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx1-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 09 Nov 2012 17:14:59 -0800
Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id qAA1EwVP014178; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.6.195]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:14:58 -0800
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, "randall@lakerest.net" <randall@lakerest.net>
Thread-Topic: draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately-07.txt
Thread-Index: AcxvqXzaufWYYqXzR8+4Z459R5Mj2VPNp6IA
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:14:57 +0000
Message-ID: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F0D7676DD@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
References: <04A38419-1229-4635-A74D-3603BA76CF19@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <04A38419-1229-4635-A74D-3603BA76CF19@lurchi.franken.de>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F0D7676DDSACEXCMBX04PRDh_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately-07.txt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:15:13 -0000

Again one stupid question:

The security considerations only mention RFC4960, but a malicious receiver/sender is not mentioned there... Could there be any adverse effect when the I-bit is constantly set? For latency-sensitive applications that appears like something an application programmer wants to do on a permanent basis, to never have to wait for any delayed SACK chunk...

But forgive me if this is a too TCP-ish view...

Regards,

Richard Scheffenegger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email