Subject: [tcpm] ATO i-d

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:39:11 -0400

Hi folks!

Based on the postings on the list it seems to Ted and I that the
consensus is for this WG to take on the ATO internet-draft
(draft-eggert-tcpm-tcp-abort-timeout-option-00.txt).  Please yell
quickly if this goes against your read of the discussion.

Thanks!

allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:05:46 -0300

At 12:39 17/05/2004 -0400, you wrote:

>(draft-eggert-tcpm-tcp-abort-timeout-option-00.txt).

I think this statement does not make it clear we'll take on the issue of 
having TCP "negotiate" TCP User Timeouts, rather than on any specific proposal.

Best Regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:40:28 -0400

> I think this statement does not make it clear we'll take on the
> issue of having TCP "negotiate" TCP User Timeouts, rather than on
> any specific proposal.

Right.

So... I believe that when I made the first statement above I did not
realize there was another proposal in the pipeline.  That may be because
I didn't receive your note or that may have been because I had not yet
read it (I am usually *way* behind).

So, let me re-phrase a little ...

I think what we have consensus on - which is what Ted and I asked - is
to undertake work to allow TCP endpoints to negotiate a connection
timeout.  If we have mis-read consensus on this point, please yell.

At this point, we have two i-ds in this space.  The first is the above
mentioned document from Lars and has been discussed in some detail on
the list.  The second was recently announced and is:

    draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-auto-option-00.txt

We can take up either of these, both of these or work the ideas together
into a single document.  Opinions on which path makes the most sense
would be very welcome.

Thanks!

allman

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:57:35 -0300

>read it (I am usually *way* behind).

That's true: By the time you made the statement you were not aware of my 
proposal, yet.

>into a single document.  Opinions on which path makes the most sense

IMHO, both drafts are *alternative* approaches to handle the issue of 
having TCP set the USER TIMEOUT parameter.
However, in any case, I'd wait for a couple of weeks so that participants 
have enough time to take a look at the drafts. My proposal has been online 
for only two days, and I've "announced" it to the WG mailing-list *today*.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:57:13 +0200

> into a single document.  Opinions on which path makes the most sense

I have started to revise the ATO ID based on feedback from the WG and 
will submit -01 in a few days.

The main changes are using fewer bytes for the ATO option, replacing the 
3-way ATO negotiation with a 2-way handshake during the SYN/SYN+ACK, and 
various smaller fixes.

These changes address feedback I've received from the WG (including 
Fernando) and the chairs, both on and off list.

I've briefly read over draft-gont, but am unsure what it adds that the 
modified ATO draft does not already offer. A section in the new 
draft-gont comparing it to the existing ATO draft would have been helpful.

After submission of -01 of the ATO draft, we should figure out whether 
there is any need to work on two different approaches. I'd personally 
much prefer a single document, especially since it is currently unclear 
whether the two approaches really differ much.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories