From alexander.zimmermann@comsys.rwth-aachen.de Sun Jun 3 09:26:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758D321F8587 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:26:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JkuNGy8ebIwk for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.7.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CBE21F8585 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from mx-out-1.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.186]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0M51007J6UZV37E0@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for tcpm@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:26:19 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,708,1330902000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="179379543" Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by mx-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:26:19 +0200 Received: from [192.168.4.14] ([unknown] [213.219.164.134]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0M5100F8FUZVAI90@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for tcpm@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:26:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Zimmermann Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2D5B70CA-515D-4361-8730-6DEC05811637"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:26:18 +0200 Message-id: To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [tcpm] Time for RFC4614bis? X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 16:26:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2D5B70CA-515D-4361-8730-6DEC05811637 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, all, I'm wondering if the WG is interested in a update of the TCP Roadmap = (RFC4614). If yes, I would like to start with a first proposal. Alex --Apple-Mail=_2D5B70CA-515D-4361-8730-6DEC05811637 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk/LkCoACgkQdyiq39b9uS5zQQCeJJe/Ns01GVvBDlbxsfML9+uu lHcAoJvNEZk1+NkFUr8hZfUeYOEjoPhP =vExH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2D5B70CA-515D-4361-8730-6DEC05811637-- From mattmathis@google.com Sun Jun 3 10:32:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E70321F857A for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jJtv+4qzFwmX for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEEC21F856C for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so3507868bkt.31 for ; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; bh=kuOjtK0tdFcG+pKjjMUvzakg8YFoZ/1LQJOkQpLEiwg=; b=gmirjiLx19ZqD4Zn5XaRKqqib56ImDDeq3q2bI3ZQIO0GlFhXNx3nfDhYpd5lV9M90 N3BjmS0Yys3/5uPkFdkNLV61noWUz0VGfhwk8jGi40zsEgyT+9clBpYB1o26jrrlVRts XWbYTTE5s0OlSIpdDvk/JmqfhyaqOEoKEqf0QCgwLC1zPvUJ5gDr6vy4X25Vk/IjEMkR PnlJ1QqyNVU9AuMMsrJBp8RnhyfCFBJKbUTo6C0uWj+xNhipxJ+vRCbhnzJ3DRQvgmtS k3vaWsK2xmmzD4ONvNKcgi5KBWLJ5PEgUuHEJI4TTeEYsoy0ezhgmmY8vuoDnHvSGqCF iWGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=kuOjtK0tdFcG+pKjjMUvzakg8YFoZ/1LQJOkQpLEiwg=; b=pBuPX5MLjtTHpijsd4S9WOQSJgej7IbsrzFV8Li/4sAF95kylLmH+YREO6Z0N47LpU MYxyXTwowYZ2q0GXwEJVmxaZ+PsUTdt0nwRU8wuEdyCOIww2hkYByn6QVv0ICmRGbjX/ XqQCq6k8BgGoUUFJzV8FBItABBKxh6adUNdhtYUeFwuk176/ovEj5qxaba1Hz8h/wVET 92LTo/fcfI4yUmcntB/8VlRWMo9VtkLE/Pabqd6/uRCMi7S52qJE4gr+kECWHShgILKE hFS5HJJKLgKYwwNHYBYByLP2gabdG3mrWYY26TrnLmG7tuqBxz7UXGkoFKKuo5ZKKMqB NMiQ== Received: by 10.204.156.202 with SMTP id y10mr4934678bkw.140.1338744744559; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.156.202 with SMTP id y10mr4934671bkw.140.1338744744310; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.40.74 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:32:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: Alexander Zimmermann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSQjwbLExbKXyOXm3jg5FuIBfBF5S2CjouMy31vwJct8RVhJH3MvFqh4N4LbNItDQ96RQNEDR7LFUsl+w8w75HHJBaYVStfM0abAhqpRJbjkobQEE+ph+w1Z4JM/lukNdN2Q1E Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Time for RFC4614bis? X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:32:27 -0000 An RFC does not feel like the right form. Perhaps a wiki? Perhaps a wiki periodically, check pointed to an RFC. Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. =A0- Alan Kay On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Alexander Zimmermann wrote: > Hi, all, > > I'm wondering if the WG is interested in a update of the TCP Roadmap (RFC= 4614). If yes, I would like to start with a first proposal. > > Alex > > > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > From wes@mti-systems.com Sun Jun 3 19:13:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0141F21F87FB for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:13:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6HrWUBT23GFS for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr11.networksolutionsemail.com (omr11.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C7321F87FA for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr2 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr11.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q542DaL6023273 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:13:36 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr2 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com Received: from [69.81.143.202] ([69.81.143.202:17695] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by cm-omr2 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 5B/D0-11572-FC91CCF4; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:13:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4FCC19CF.7020507@mti-systems.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:13:35 -0400 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Mathis References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Time for RFC4614bis? X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:13:38 -0000 On 6/3/2012 1:32 PM, Matt Mathis wrote: > An RFC does not feel like the right form. Perhaps a wiki? Perhaps > a wiki periodically, check pointed to an RFC. In the past, we'd talked about a perpetually living I-D, with (perhaps) periodic snapshots as an RFC. I would be really happy to see someone with the cycles work on that (thanks Alex!). I have a set of several deltas stored up that I could share ... getting them into an I-D has been something near the bottom of my stack for a very long time, and I would love to hand them off :). -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems From john@jlc.net Mon Jun 4 03:43:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA2E21F87B5 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 03:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nkf-4ECe8IWK for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 03:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EAE21F87C0 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 03:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 5856A33C22; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:43:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:43:42 -0400 From: John Leslie To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Message-ID: <20120604104342.GE93700@verdi> References: <4FCC19CF.7020507@mti-systems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCC19CF.7020507@mti-systems.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: [tcpm] Time for RFC4614bis? X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:43:43 -0000 Wesley Eddy wrote: > On 6/3/2012 1:32 PM, Matt Mathis wrote: > >> An RFC does not feel like the right form. Perhaps a wiki? Perhaps >> a wiki periodically, check pointed to an RFC. Note the discussion on about the Tao... We do have a number of IETF wikis, mostly inactive. While I think the wiki paradigm has promise, we're not there yet, IMHO. > In the past, we'd talked about a perpetually living I-D, > with (perhaps) periodic snapshots as an RFC. This is the paradigm we're ready for. I suggest a WG I-D, where the responsible author can change as necessary. Whether it should be named draft-ietf-tcpm-4614bis is an open question, which I am happy to defer to the WGCs -- though discussion might help... -- John Leslie From uma.chunduri@ericsson.com Mon Jun 4 11:51:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEFB11E80BB for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBkHAA1331hT for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1887311E80B5 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q54IpbZO031299; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:51:40 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.31]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:51:38 -0400 From: Uma Chunduri To: Joe Touch , "tcpm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:51:37 -0400 Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac0+uLiU6fq+RisnSRGmK4VWYkRihQDyY35Q Message-ID: References: <20120530224553.13541.213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:51:43 -0000 I have gone through this document and this looks like an important problem = to be addressed=20 for deploying AO in client/server environments (where NAT is always a possi= bility). Sorry, I was not following this list earlier.=20 Can anybody summarize what were the specific=20 reasons (if any) for insufficient interest in the WG? --=20 Uma C.=20 -----Original Message----- From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe= Touch Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:05 PM To: tcpm@ietf.org Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03= .txt Hi, all, I have submitted an updated version of TCP-AO NAT. It was updated with a ne= w date and more recent citations. As per discussions on this list, since there was insufficient interest in t= his WG, this document has been submitted for publication as an individual s= ubmission. FYI. Joe -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:45:53 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: touch@isi.edu A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt has been successfully s= ubmitted by Joe Touch and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat Revision: 03 Title: A TCP Authentication Option NAT Extension Creation date: 2012-05-30 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 6 Abstract: This document describes an extension to the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) to support its use over connections that pass through network address and/or port translators (NATs/NAPTs). This extension changes the data used to compute traffic keys, but does not alter TCP-AO's packet processing or key generation algorithms. =20 The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm From michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jun 4 12:04:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04A821F8595 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:04:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BNh8v46g6fl7 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC3B21F8592 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q54J45m0015385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:04:05 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:04:05 +0200 From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" To: Uma Chunduri , Joe Touch , "tcpm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:04:02 +0200 Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac0+uLiU6fq+RisnSRGmK4VWYkRihQDyY35QAABl/NA= Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB40E@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <20120530224553.13541.213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:04:09 -0000 We've asked several times in the past whether people are interested in the = document, who is willing to review it, etc. For instance, please have a look at this list thread: http://www.ietf.org/m= ail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg06427.html Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Uma Chunduri > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:52 PM > To: Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >=20 > I have gone through this document and this looks like an=20 > important problem to be addressed for deploying AO in=20 > client/server environments (where NAT is always a possibility). >=20 > Sorry, I was not following this list earlier.=20 > Can anybody summarize what were the specific reasons (if=20 > any) for insufficient interest in the WG? >=20 > -- > Uma C.=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:05 PM > To: tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >=20 > Hi, all, >=20 > I have submitted an updated version of TCP-AO NAT. It was=20 > updated with a new date and more recent citations. >=20 > As per discussions on this list, since there was insufficient=20 > interest in this WG, this document has been submitted for=20 > publication as an individual submission. >=20 > FYI. >=20 > Joe >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt > Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:45:53 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: touch@isi.edu >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt has been=20 > successfully submitted by Joe Touch and posted to the IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat > Revision: 03 > Title: A TCP Authentication Option NAT Extension > Creation date: 2012-05-30 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 6 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes an extension to the TCP Authentication > Option (TCP-AO) to support its use over connections that pass > through network address and/or port translators (NATs/NAPTs). This > extension changes the data used to compute traffic keys, but does > not alter TCP-AO's packet processing or key=20 > generation algorithms. >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > = From uma.chunduri@ericsson.com Mon Jun 4 12:27:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483B321F8594 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jjLahowtaJoF for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8435921F857F for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q54JRegU007157; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:27:41 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.31]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:27:38 -0400 From: Uma Chunduri To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" , Joe Touch , "tcpm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:27:36 -0400 Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac0+uLiU6fq+RisnSRGmK4VWYkRihQDyY35QAABl/NAAAIpqcA== Message-ID: References: <20120530224553.13541.213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB40E@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB40E@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:27:46 -0000 Thank you Michael. I am interested in this document.=20 Though Routing Protocols (BGP/LDP etc..) using AO may not have this issue a= s these protocols messages=20 are generally not NATed, client/server application in routing environments = which use AO may encounter NAT boxes. Essentially this will render (light weight) AO not usable in those environ= ments. =20 I can review the document and post any specific comments I have in the list= . I feel,=20 this capability is important for more widespread use of AO. --=20 Uma C.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Scharf, Michael (Michael) [mailto:michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com]= =20 Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:04 PM To: Uma Chunduri; Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org Subject: RE: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-na= t-03.txt We've asked several times in the past whether people are interested in the = document, who is willing to review it, etc. For instance, please have a look at this list thread: http://www.ietf.org/m= ail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg06427.html Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of Uma Chunduri > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:52 PM > To: Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >=20 > I have gone through this document and this looks like an important=20 > problem to be addressed for deploying AO in client/server environments=20 > (where NAT is always a possibility). >=20 > Sorry, I was not following this list earlier.=20 > Can anybody summarize what were the specific reasons (if > any) for insufficient interest in the WG? >=20 > -- > Uma C.=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of Joe Touch > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:05 PM > To: tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >=20 > Hi, all, >=20 > I have submitted an updated version of TCP-AO NAT. It was updated with=20 > a new date and more recent citations. >=20 > As per discussions on this list, since there was insufficient interest=20 > in this WG, this document has been submitted for publication as an=20 > individual submission. >=20 > FYI. >=20 > Joe >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt > Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:45:53 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: touch@isi.edu >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt has been=20 > successfully submitted by Joe Touch and posted to the IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat > Revision: 03 > Title: A TCP Authentication Option NAT Extension > Creation date: 2012-05-30 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 6 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes an extension to the TCP Authentication > Option (TCP-AO) to support its use over connections that pass > through network address and/or port translators (NATs/NAPTs). This > extension changes the data used to compute traffic keys, but does > not alter TCP-AO's packet processing or key generation=20 > algorithms. >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > = From touch@isi.edu Mon Jun 4 15:34:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA59021F86C7 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:34:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFrpqNtzr0Hv for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3915121F86C2 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q54MYDbr018769 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FCD37E5.6020308@isi.edu> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:34:13 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Uma Chunduri References: <20120530224553.13541.213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB40E@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:34:38 -0000 Hi, all, If there is enough interest to have this taken through the WG, please let me know. Otherwise, as per previous direction, I'll continue on the independent path. My goal is not to end-run, but it is to move forward. Joe On 6/4/2012 12:27 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > Thank you Michael. I am interested in this document. > Though Routing Protocols (BGP/LDP etc..) using AO may not have this issue as these protocols messages > are generally not NATed, client/server application in routing environments which use AO may encounter NAT boxes. > Essentially this will render (light weight) AO not usable in those environments. > > I can review the document and post any specific comments I have in the list. I feel, > this capability is important for more widespread use of AO. > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 7 14:28:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7222311E815A; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:28:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_6CONS_WORD=0.356, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eK+DOWz0HBlN; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2219811E8154; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:28:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120607212805.11466.27552.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:28:05 -0700 Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Subject: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:28:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions = Working Group of the IETF. Title : TCP Options and MSS Author(s) : David Borman Filename : draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2012-06-07 This memo discusses what value to use with the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option, and updates RFC 879 and RFC 2385. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss/ From michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jun 8 01:44:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB9221F88BF for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:44:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.06 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.06 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jgk9mpu3Wy7b for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C86121F88BD for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q588g7n5017293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:44:35 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:44:02 +0200 From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" To: Alexander Zimmermann Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:44:01 +0200 Thread-Topic: Feedback on RFC4614bis Thread-Index: Ac1BpcQBH4A+QQBTQ0igVI4n5SwQUwDqNx1A Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Jun 2012 08:44:42 -0000 Alex, all, The chairs think that updating RFC 4614 is a very valuable and relevant obj= ective for TCPM. We'd be interested in further feedback from the community regarding the pro= cess to get there, e. g., whether a Wiki could be a reasonable approach for= contributing text. In any case, we need new text on what happened since RFC 4614 was completed= ... As a first step, we suggest to compile an initial draft, and then to di= scuss this draft as well as the process (e. g., in Vancouver). Thanks Michael PS: I also have some incomplete data that I could share if needed. > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Alexander Zimmermann > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 6:26 PM > To: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions > Subject: [tcpm] Time for RFC4614bis? >=20 > Hi, all, >=20 > I'm wondering if the WG is interested in a update of the TCP=20 > Roadmap (RFC4614). If yes, I would like to start with a first=20 > proposal. >=20 > Alex >=20 >=20 > = From fgont@si6networks.com Fri Jun 8 01:53:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB02C21F8867 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K2pJnqmo92B0 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCDF221F885A for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::1a5] by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ScuwY-0006X7-Hw; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:53:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 05:53:09 -0300 From: Fernando Gont Organization: SI6 Networks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Jun 2012 08:53:25 -0000 On 06/08/2012 05:44 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote: > The chairs think that updating RFC 4614 is a very valuable and > relevant objective for TCPM. +1 > We'd be interested in further feedback from the community regarding > the process to get there, e. g., whether a Wiki could be a reasonable > approach for contributing text. Just double-checking: For contributing text, or as an alternative to publishing an RFC? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jun 8 02:00:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BF221F85CC for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1FvgJxh9Ey7 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FE921F8594 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q588xuOT025529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:00:15 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:59:54 +0200 From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" To: Fernando Gont Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:59:53 +0200 Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis Thread-Index: Ac1FVC6gwttLSqD2S3C+5YZ8QQ7FEwAAFqAQ Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Jun 2012 09:00:20 -0000 > > We'd be interested in further feedback from the community regarding=20 > > the process to get there, e. g., whether a Wiki could be a=20 > reasonable=20 > > approach for contributing text. >=20 > Just double-checking: For contributing text, or as an=20 > alternative to publishing an RFC? Well, both ;) As individual, I'd argue that we should publish an RFC from time to time, t= o document the status and to go through the IETF review process. Michael= From fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com Fri Jun 8 02:08:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E569D21F8712 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:08:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iufVykeIiUYz for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62C121F855B for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so1255991ggn.31 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aUChCqwY611IUpYInkR22T8HHF8ll4cB+NAT3UKARno=; b=t9RX3YGOVM7g8KiwdiDsvHXF0iiBq9qX0odjsbUdzQ9fBHId/bUtS0bcMUN3qHjM8G rL9SfWcCxlLT7sP1V9hWvKhXXnq959Ka5Ht5HPExjpwE/WxTkhAEL9Uo5KZszNrlQmlM nayGVX+oDM/C8o2avgbqPvNAYygtyJ3UkthgwadACtIOC4IBBGW6Fdyre7NUPh6LUUYj b9YRc/SAfPbdOQk0zdnK8RrZ9NQW3bA2XMLejEryHTSfpig+06oBeW9P1bQ16DHw31H1 Mmlsvac16ujLSbIVB8j96Ild/cnvw0DTZ+utjKmhAxtfTx6sfM3pt/lsxlRmD4oTTvEq t9Mw== Received: by 10.236.74.74 with SMTP id w50mr5720587yhd.34.1339146521520; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:5c0:1000:a::1a5? ([2001:5c0:1000:a::1a5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n37sm8408444anq.0.2012.06.08.02.08.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 06:08:35 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Jun 2012 09:08:48 -0000 On 06/08/2012 05:59 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote: >>> We'd be interested in further feedback from the community >>> regarding the process to get there, e. g., whether a Wiki could >>> be a >> reasonable >>> approach for contributing text. >> >> Just double-checking: For contributing text, or as an alternative >> to publishing an RFC? > > Well, both ;) > > As individual, I'd argue that we should publish an RFC from time to > time, to document the status and to go through the IETF review > process. +1 That said, if there was consensus to not revise RFC4614 and publish a wiki instead, we should probably have a small RFC noting that RFC4614 has been replaced by a Wiki (in the same way in which we have an RFC noting that the port numbers registry is "now" maintained in an IANA web page). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 From touch@isi.edu Fri Jun 8 11:29:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D12B11E80C9 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.673 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.926, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id soaiOIgxe8iZ for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6582F21F87DA for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q58IRY4O013829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:27:34 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernando Gont References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> In-Reply-To: <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Jun 2012 18:29:08 -0000 -1. I think this doc should be updated VERY sparingly at best. It's important to understand what this doc would say differently. Is there a list of the kinds of changes we feel are sufficient to drive the need for a revision? Absent that list, -1. If we have that list, then we can decide how to proceed. I don't think a WIKI is a good idea except as a place to develop that information for a RFC issued as an update. TCP isn't supposed to have that much flux - it's not like port assignments in that regard. Joe From ananth@nttmcl.com Fri Jun 8 18:14:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4D711E80FE for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:14:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bwiC88D32iJs for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD6C11E80E2 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2340115lbb.31 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=QpYUUmQwJZR94qWH0EwZhe0FC6a08NX14SoEwKKIgFc=; b=ISPEv7M1xVR+i1MqLq22cqgCBjIm/VmKk9v10ta9f7iJHaogjBse354Yl7JATBLF0q xCR8mjprP/n1IR0zPMjN+imzmvrIzd5Y1z0opNWDNkZbGANa4cpjg0PS41SH3rvq/mhR ZBtH5yNxI5SAKumX/A4autV3bEgPqiObh5Zjxx1/Cn35GBiFlPFfz266iTuv/LN1TgE+ TaZ0y3gsgVj5Z3/IBOksIzxANx3p/Kzs/PQbz3dd7Rg2cYZtZGELSO5o/eIFEY4Jh34j I64jce5DHxLNA870dTFFtbecd1yfq0+YBGIVpQ9j6/4Gbuz2KQXmaaZ1Qt8IDqfY4eFA nguA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.46.198 with SMTP id x6mr177590lbm.19.1339204450570; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.129.41 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:14:10 -0700 Message-ID: From: Anantha Ramaiah To: Joe Touch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55406048ed30504c1ffd530 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsOeBMFsX0Jrk+FdLTAVuq1hkN52AVW+vh3q0+mp8JzEcU7R/WtgEILc0HiN1U2uKQzxIJ Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:14:13 -0000 --bcaec55406048ed30504c1ffd530 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Since I cannot argue on the philosophical aspects, I would state my arguments based on the facts. RFC 4614 (atleast one of the main goals) was to document all the TCP related RFC's, now the RFC list has grown which makes RFC 4614 outdated, so time for an update, pretty simple isn't it? Also, list should include all the recent TCP RFC's we don't want to discriminate one RFC versus other nor have an imcomplete list. (that shouldn't be the goal) That said, I would favor the approach which Wes suggested. ( plus we need to decide on the granularity of doing such updates) +1 for update assuming we can agree on the above points. -Anantha On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > -1. > > I think this doc should be updated VERY sparingly at best. > > It's important to understand what this doc would say differently. Is there > a list of the kinds of changes we feel are sufficient to drive the need for > a revision? > > Absent that list, -1. > > If we have that list, then we can decide how to proceed. I don't think a > WIKI is a good idea except as a place to develop that information for a RFC > issued as an update. TCP isn't supposed to have that much flux - it's not > like port assignments in that regard. > > Joe > > ______________________________**_________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/tcpm > --bcaec55406048ed30504c1ffd530 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Since I cannot argue on the philosophical aspects, I would state my ar= guments based on the facts.=A0 RFC 4614 (atleast one of the main goals)=A0w= as to document all the TCP related RFC's, now the RFC list has grown wh= ich makes=A0RFC 4614 outdated, so time for an update, pretty simple isn'= ;t it?
=A0
Also, list should include all the recent TCP RFC's w= e don't want to=A0discriminate one RFC versus other nor have an imcompl= ete list. (that shouldn't be the goal)=A0 That said, I would favor=A0th= e approach which Wes suggested. ( plus we need to decide on the granularity= of doing such updates)
=A0
+1 for update assuming=A0=A0we can agree on the above po= ints.
=A0
-Anantha

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> w= rote:
-1.

I think this doc should be updated VERY sparingly at best.

It's important to understand what this doc would say differently. Is th= ere a list of the kinds of changes we feel are sufficient to drive the need= for a revision?

Absent that list, -1.

If we have that list, then we can decide how to proceed. I don't think = a WIKI is a good idea except as a place to develop that information for a R= FC issued as an update. TCP isn't supposed to have that much flux - it&= #39;s not like port assignments in that regard.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

--bcaec55406048ed30504c1ffd530-- From touch@isi.edu Fri Jun 8 18:26:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9D721F8776 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:26:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.827 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sEMCUbd1WLvg for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2438D21F876A for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q591QM7I010634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD2A63E.3000706@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:26:22 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anantha Ramaiah References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:26:47 -0000 On 6/8/2012 6:14 PM, Anantha Ramaiah wrote: > Since I cannot argue on the philosophical aspects, I would state my > arguments based on the facts. RFC 4614 (atleast one of the main > goals) was to document all the TCP related RFC's, now the RFC list has > grown which makes RFC 4614 outdated, so time for an update, pretty > simple isn't it? By that argument this update would be outdated when the first RFC is published that proposes a modification - even optional or experimental - to TCP. We need some perspective on when such updates will be needed - for this time, and in the future, IMO -- and this perspective would be good to add to the document. I.e., "This document should be considered for update when..." IMO, unless there are updates to TCP that are mandatory, such an update is not needed. Joe From ananth@nttmcl.com Fri Jun 8 18:44:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB91A11E809C for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jNkcIi6Nn16z for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E5C11E8079 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2362099lbb.31 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:44:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=PwiLW0ya4V7RAT8cfOblPaU9YCgcZAJDGaeyzCh1Lcs=; b=iWtFYMBVrG0kbnPFsueNg7/+gz673mCPzCYhJCckBDlP5aAHLve5I8BRgR8KvES6qR XQgNVVQQ/7doY9KgefZMApAM/njvQdFV9sXxmPvx3kQS+ym0R5uj3v2yQ8/5fwhkcbNs OjMxlN6WWPxjzPLgfRsl2Nw4vFmKhy37n1ev1Dxw9Mi/Qu1CAtiLxnZdAg8gILdO/p1O idA5Euc4NFBLkg1qO59vBkiBsHSGJtpmsvn11yw1XaPosfHRpjK1FnWV+y58goRcd5v/ v9wUC2ik5Gze8QR6aswzahwtFMaWGQ7Yw/MOIiF236HPrISDekWoy7mQ1kkbyBJF+htt hfTA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.85.42 with SMTP id e10mr189778lbz.17.1339206266841; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.129.41 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:44:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FD2A63E.3000706@isi.edu> References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> <4FD2A63E.3000706@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:44:26 -0700 Message-ID: From: Anantha Ramaiah To: Joe Touch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04016dcfd0ea0a04c200412a X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxVKg2hw89BT8bbYzs6Raaog+rbG2fuvhJPHDKnyXIaZcmlhyGPogQLY3lnTk+E23Tu4fn Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:44:29 -0000 --f46d04016dcfd0ea0a04c200412a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Joe, If you read my original email carefully (which you snipped), it did mention that :- "Also, list should include all the recent TCP RFC's we don't want to discriminate one RFC versus other nor have an imcomplete list. (that shouldn't be the goal) That said, I would favor the approach which Wes suggested. ( plus we need to decide on the granularity of doing such updates)" "granularity of doing updates" is same as what you are alluding below. -Anantha On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 6/8/2012 6:14 PM, Anantha Ramaiah wrote: > >> Since I cannot argue on the philosophical aspects, I would state my >> arguments based on the facts. RFC 4614 (atleast one of the main >> goals) was to document all the TCP related RFC's, now the RFC list has >> grown which makes RFC 4614 outdated, so time for an update, pretty >> simple isn't it? >> > > By that argument this update would be outdated when the first RFC is > published that proposes a modification - even optional or experimental - to > TCP. > > We need some perspective on when such updates will be needed - for this > time, and in the future, IMO -- and this perspective would be good to add > to the document. I.e., "This document should be considered for update > when..." > > IMO, unless there are updates to TCP that are mandatory, such an update is > not needed. > > Joe > --f46d04016dcfd0ea0a04c200412a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Joe,
=A0 If you read my original email carefully (which = you snipped), it did mention that :-
=A0
"Also, li= st should include all the recent TCP RFC's we don't want to discrim= inate one RFC versus other nor have an imcomplete list. (that shouldn't= be the goal)=A0 That said, I would favor the approach which Wes suggested.= ( plus we need to decide on the granularity of doing such updates)"
=A0
"granularity of doing updates" is same as what= you are=A0alluding below.
=A0
-Anantha

<= br>=A0
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Joe = Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:


On 6/8/2012 6:14 PM, Anantha Ramaiah wrote:
Since I cannot argue on the philosophical aspects, I would state my
arguments based on the facts. =A0RFC 4614 (atleast one of the main
goals) was to document all the TCP related RFC's, now the RFC list has<= br> grown which makes RFC 4614 outdated, so time for an update, pretty
simple isn't it?

By that argument this update would be outdated when the first RFC is publis= hed that proposes a modification - even optional or experimental - to TCP.<= br>
We need some perspective on when such updates will be needed - for this tim= e, and in the future, IMO -- and this perspective would be good to add to t= he document. I.e., "This document should be considered for update when= ..."

IMO, unless there are updates to TCP that are mandatory, such an update is = not needed.

Joe

--f46d04016dcfd0ea0a04c200412a-- From touch@isi.edu Fri Jun 8 18:58:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9A711E81C8 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.818 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.781, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnsMYKlPcysn for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7707211E8095 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q591voMu009094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD2AD9E.4040203@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:57:50 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anantha Ramaiah References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> <4FD2A63E.3000706@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:58:34 -0000 Hi, Anantha, Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing that much, but I was expecting to apply the test now, rather than only after this update. Joe On 6/8/2012 6:44 PM, Anantha Ramaiah wrote: > Hi, Joe, > If you read my original email carefully (which you snipped), it did > mention that :- > "Also, list should include all the recent TCP RFC's we don't want to > discriminate one RFC versus other nor have an imcomplete list. (that > shouldn't be the goal) That said, I would favor the approach which Wes > suggested. ( plus we need to decide on the granularity of doing such > updates)" > "granularity of doing updates" is same as what you are alluding below. > -Anantha > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Joe Touch > wrote: > > > > On 6/8/2012 6:14 PM, Anantha Ramaiah wrote: > > Since I cannot argue on the philosophical aspects, I would state my > arguments based on the facts. RFC 4614 (atleast one of the main > goals) was to document all the TCP related RFC's, now the RFC > list has > grown which makes RFC 4614 outdated, so time for an update, pretty > simple isn't it? > > > By that argument this update would be outdated when the first RFC is > published that proposes a modification - even optional or > experimental - to TCP. > > We need some perspective on when such updates will be needed - for > this time, and in the future, IMO -- and this perspective would be > good to add to the document. I.e., "This document should be > considered for update when..." > > IMO, unless there are updates to TCP that are mandatory, such an > update is not needed. > > Joe > > From fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com Fri Jun 8 19:15:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F4E21F855A for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ygA0KrttgoUx for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FF121F8554 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1999895ghb.31 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EUnBLmpVqKa2zypAMV28UvcNEjYBNArGDDGVMmbMx2A=; b=MMvvFRyx/cBfcEmHVtBd1FYAhOxgWsMPyQZ7ua51XUj7NraE5swOh3/nQm2sal5Api JcvxcyJZif1bm8VKhONOgb4LI7FTS6TLUKQBGBXIg8xxnhhxAHLTfoBY4UsZIUOOYlTe hGselNbH/coS4OSmKV9d+psYc61QSvOmPOfoWvZq530WyHcFMOj6mASivUyUWEWJiowt EIqDa2QVL+Jb7VgeyLbmFeFP7PJ55lgMe2HwEjIjCkgpVBXc3Qm7fZF4Sv18MFggXDCD 5JjeWwkkeJK2vjjEGp2Nq8T9mNvkpxSDi5VfTTfMg6Xa3U7KMt9RvtmSmK+xfUGzm646 6T2A== Received: by 10.236.187.2 with SMTP id x2mr10414209yhm.42.1339208103116; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:5c0:1000:a::5f5? ([2001:5c0:1000:a::5f5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o10sm12649176anm.1.2012.06.08.19.14.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <4FD2872E.7070409@gont.com.ar> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:13:50 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Touch References: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB47F@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1BD75.4020805@si6networks.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB480@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4FD1C113.1010600@gont.com.ar> <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4FD24416.7080109@isi.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Fernando Gont , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on RFC4614bis X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:15:04 -0000 Hi, Joe, On 06/08/2012 03:27 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > -1. > > I think this doc should be updated VERY sparingly at best. What'd be the point of having an outdated roadmap? > It's important to understand what this doc would say differently. Is > there a list of the kinds of changes we feel are sufficient to drive the > need for a revision? Well, we have published a bunch of TCPM documents since RFC 4614 was published.... Of the top of my head, I can think of: * The updated congestion control RFCs * ICMP attacks * ICMP soft errors * tcpsecure et al * Deprecation of urgen data * Reduction of TIME_WAIT state by means of TCP timestamps * TCP-AO * Deprecation of Source Quench * The upcoming TCP MSS and TCP timestamps * etc... > If we have that list, then we can decide how to proceed. Well, please consider the above a starting point. :-) > I don't think a > WIKI is a good idea except as a place to develop that information for a > RFC issued as an update. TCP isn't supposed to have that much flux - > it's not like port assignments in that regard. Agreed. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 From michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jun 11 08:30:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF2921F85B4 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XV7C-zoTABRd for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B07A21F8634 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q5BFTsFU005345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:29:58 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:29:57 +0200 From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" To: Uma Chunduri Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:29:55 +0200 Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac0+uLiU6fq+RisnSRGmK4VWYkRihQDyY35QAABl/NAAAIpqcAFXN/rg Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB4C7@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <20120530224553.13541.213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB40E@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" , Joe Touch Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:30:02 -0000 Uma, The consensus in TCPM has been not to adopt the document, but this does not= prevent the document from being published on the individual track. Changing this decision would require significant support in the TCPM commun= ity. I'd like to understand whether there is a new use case TCPM might not have = been aware of before. You apparently argue that "client/server applicatious= in routing environments" are different to routing protocols (BGP/LDP), rig= ht? Could you please elaborate on this use case and why this should affect = the use of AO? For instance, I wonder whether there is a fundamental differ= ence to a BGP route reflector, or whether TLS could be an alternative. Thanks Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chunduri@ericsson.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:28 PM > To: Scharf, Michael (Michael); Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >=20 > Thank you Michael. I am interested in this document.=20 > Though Routing Protocols (BGP/LDP etc..) using AO may not=20 > have this issue as these protocols messages are generally not=20 > NATed, client/server application in routing environments=20 > which use AO may encounter NAT boxes. > Essentially this will render (light weight) AO not usable in=20 > those environments. =20 >=20 > I can review the document and post any specific comments I=20 > have in the list. I feel, this capability is important for=20 > more widespread use of AO. >=20 > -- > Uma C.=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scharf, Michael (Michael)=20 > [mailto:michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:04 PM > To: Uma Chunduri; Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >=20 > We've asked several times in the past whether people are=20 > interested in the document, who is willing to review it, etc. >=20 > For instance, please have a look at this list thread:=20 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg06427.html >=20 > Michael >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf=20 > > Of Uma Chunduri > > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:52 PM > > To: Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt > >=20 > > I have gone through this document and this looks like an important=20 > > problem to be addressed for deploying AO in client/server=20 > environments=20 > > (where NAT is always a possibility). > >=20 > > Sorry, I was not following this list earlier.=20 > > Can anybody summarize what were the specific reasons (if > > any) for insufficient interest in the WG? > >=20 > > -- > > Uma C.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf=20 > > Of Joe Touch > > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:05 PM > > To: tcpm@ietf.org > > Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > > draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt > >=20 > > Hi, all, > >=20 > > I have submitted an updated version of TCP-AO NAT. It was=20 > updated with=20 > > a new date and more recent citations. > >=20 > > As per discussions on this list, since there was=20 > insufficient interest=20 > > in this WG, this document has been submitted for publication as an=20 > > individual submission. > >=20 > > FYI. > >=20 > > Joe > >=20 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt > > Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:45:53 -0700 > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > To: touch@isi.edu > >=20 > > A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt has been=20 > > successfully submitted by Joe Touch and posted to the IETF=20 > repository. > >=20 > > Filename: draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat > > Revision: 03 > > Title: A TCP Authentication Option NAT Extension > > Creation date: 2012-05-30 > > WG ID: Individual Submission > > Number of pages: 6 > >=20 > > Abstract: > > This document describes an extension to the TCP Authentication > > Option (TCP-AO) to support its use over connections that pass > > through network address and/or port translators=20 > (NATs/NAPTs). This > > extension changes the data used to compute traffic=20 > keys, but does > > not alter TCP-AO's packet processing or key generation=20 > > algorithms. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > > tcpm mailing list > > tcpm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > _______________________________________________ > > tcpm mailing list > > tcpm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > = From touch@isi.edu Mon Jun 11 08:38:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF8321F85B7 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bs26jH4kOw9a for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0B121F85B1 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.196.139] ([216.13.59.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5BFbJT8029512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD610AE.9000906@isi.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:18 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120604 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" References: <20120530224553.13541.213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC6A780.3000701@isi.edu> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB40E@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB4C7@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB4C7@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:38:35 -0000 FWIW, I think Uma is referring to RPKI. I had extended discussions in SIDR on this issue, regarding the maturity of TCP-AO for use for BGP route and policy key stores. I suspect that TLS won't be sufficient; attacking the TCP connections of a keyserver that validates BGP routes could be as debilitating as attacking the BGP session itself. However, I'm not clear on whether NAT access to such resources is critical. Uma might elaborate on that. Joe On 6/11/2012 8:29 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote: > Uma, > > The consensus in TCPM has been not to adopt the document, but this does not prevent the document from being published on the individual track. > > Changing this decision would require significant support in the TCPM community. > > I'd like to understand whether there is a new use case TCPM might not have been aware of before. You apparently argue that "client/server applicatious in routing environments" are different to routing protocols (BGP/LDP), right? Could you please elaborate on this use case and why this should affect the use of AO? For instance, I wonder whether there is a fundamental difference to a BGP route reflector, or whether TLS could be an alternative. > > Thanks > > Michael > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chunduri@ericsson.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:28 PM >> To: Scharf, Michael (Michael); Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for >> draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >> >> Thank you Michael. I am interested in this document. >> Though Routing Protocols (BGP/LDP etc..) using AO may not >> have this issue as these protocols messages are generally not >> NATed, client/server application in routing environments >> which use AO may encounter NAT boxes. >> Essentially this will render (light weight) AO not usable in >> those environments. >> >> I can review the document and post any specific comments I >> have in the list. I feel, this capability is important for >> more widespread use of AO. >> >> -- >> Uma C. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scharf, Michael (Michael) >> [mailto:michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:04 PM >> To: Uma Chunduri; Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for >> draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >> >> We've asked several times in the past whether people are >> interested in the document, who is willing to review it, etc. >> >> For instance, please have a look at this list thread: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg06427.html >> >> Michael >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf >>> Of Uma Chunduri >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:52 PM >>> To: Joe Touch; tcpm@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for >>> draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >>> >>> I have gone through this document and this looks like an important >>> problem to be addressed for deploying AO in client/server >> environments >>> (where NAT is always a possibility). >>> >>> Sorry, I was not following this list earlier. >>> Can anybody summarize what were the specific reasons (if >>> any) for insufficient interest in the WG? >>> >>> -- >>> Uma C. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf >>> Of Joe Touch >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:05 PM >>> To: tcpm@ietf.org >>> Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for >>> draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >>> >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> I have submitted an updated version of TCP-AO NAT. It was >> updated with >>> a new date and more recent citations. >>> >>> As per discussions on this list, since there was >> insufficient interest >>> in this WG, this document has been submitted for publication as an >>> individual submission. >>> >>> FYI. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt >>> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:45:53 -0700 >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>> To: touch@isi.edu >>> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-03.txt has been >>> successfully submitted by Joe Touch and posted to the IETF >> repository. >>> >>> Filename: draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat >>> Revision: 03 >>> Title: A TCP Authentication Option NAT Extension >>> Creation date: 2012-05-30 >>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>> Number of pages: 6 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document describes an extension to the TCP Authentication >>> Option (TCP-AO) to support its use over connections that pass >>> through network address and/or port translators >> (NATs/NAPTs). This >>> extension changes the data used to compute traffic >> keys, but does >>> not alter TCP-AO's packet processing or key generation >>> algorithms. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tcpm mailing list >>> tcpm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tcpm mailing list >>> tcpm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >>> From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Jun 11 11:47:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABB721F8525; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.35 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_6CONS_WORD=0.356, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHR2s75C4M12; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B344E21F85C6; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120611184755.16408.43201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:47:55 -0700 Cc: tcpm chair , tcpm mailing list , RFC Editor Subject: [tcpm] Document Action: 'TCP Options and MSS' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05.txt) X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:47:56 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'TCP Options and MSS' (draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss/ Technical Summary This memo discusses what value to use with the TCP MSS option, and updates RFC 879 and RFC 2385. There has been some confusion as to what value should be filled in the TCP MSS option when using IP and TCP options. When calculating the value to put in the TCP MSS option, the MTU value SHOULD be decreased by only the size of the fixed IP and TCP headers, and SHOULD NOT be decreased to account for any possible IP or TCP options; conversely, the sender MUST reduce the TCP data length to account for any IP or TCP options that it is including in the packets that it sends. Working Group Summary This document was written to clarify statements in the TCP standards, given that implementors asked for better guidance of what is already known for many years. The document represents the consensus of the TCPM working group and addresses all feedback in the working group and during/after the last call. Document Quality This is a short document that can be summarized by a single sentence (in section 2). The rest of this document just explains the rationale of what is implied by the TCP standard documents. The MSS option is implemented in all known TCP stacks. It has been reported in the past that some implementations handled the MSS option differently. Due to the resulting risk of packet fragmentation it can be assumed that all modern TCP stacks comply to what the document clarifies. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Michael Scharf . The Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy . From pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi Wed Jun 20 01:24:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA7021F8742 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:24:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g96pVOgmkygc for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kirsi2.inet.fi (mta-out.inet.fi [195.156.147.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8A621F8714 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (80.223.92.46) by kirsi2.inet.fi (8.5.140.03) (authenticated as saropa-1) id 4FD1DCFC001295DF for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:24:27 +0300 From: Pasi Sarolahti Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:24:24 +0300 Message-Id: <29A82793-861B-4CC0-A7B8-67BB2A870261@iki.fi> To: tcpm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [tcpm] Call for TCPM agenda items at IETF-84 X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:24:30 -0000 Hi, The chairs are starting to prepare the TCPM agenda for the Vancouver = meeting. If you want to give a presentation, please send us the usual = information: * Title and draft name * Speaker * Amount of time requested At the moment we have requested a 2.5-hour slot. The draft meeting = agenda will be published on June 28. We hope you could indicate your = plans by then, so that we get some idea if the 2.5-hour slot is = sufficient. The deadline for WG agendas is July 18, but if there are = many requests, the agenda may get full before that. Thanks! - Pasi & the TCPM chairs From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Jun 21 12:28:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D367521F86DE; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id shvx3IZ4iHJ4; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFD921F8703; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21 Message-ID: <20120621192836.28191.89304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:28:36 -0700 Cc: tcpm WG Subject: [tcpm] WG Action: Rechartered TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm) X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:28:37 -0000 The TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm) working group in the Transport Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Active Working Group Chairs: Michael Scharf Yoshifumi Nishida Pasi Sarolahti Assigned Area Director: Wesley Eddy Mailing list Address: tcpm@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/ Charter of Working Group: TCP is currently the Internet's predominant transport protocol. TCPM is the working group within the IETF that handles small TCP changes, i.e., minor extensions to TCP algorithms and protocol mechanisms. The TCPM WG serves several purposes: * The WG mostly focuses on maintenance issues (e.g., bug fixes) and modest changes to the protocol, algorithms, and interfaces that maintain TCP's utility. * The WG is a venue for moving current TCP specifications along the standards track (as community energy is available for such efforts). * The focus of the working group is TCP. In cases where small changes are directly applicable to other transports (e.g., SCTP or DCCP), the mappings to other transports may be specified alongside that for TCP, but other significant additions and changes to other transports are not in scope. TCPM also provides a venue for standardization of incremental enhancements of TCP's standard congestion control, but such changes may require additional review by the IRTF Congestion Control Research Group (ICCRG). Fundamental changes to TCP or its congestion control algorithms (e.g., departure from loss-based congestion control) will be handled by other working groups or will require rechartering. TCP's congestion control algorithms are the model followed by alternate transports (e.g., SCTP or DCCP), which are standardized in other working groups, such as the Transport Area WG (tsvwg). In the past, the IETF has worked on several documents about algorithms that are specified for multiple protocols (e.g., TCP and SCTP) in the same document. Which WG shepherds such documents will be determined on a case-by-case basis. In any case, the TCPM WG will remain in close contact with other relevant WGs working on these protocols to ensure openness and stringent review from all angles. New TCPM milestones that fall within the scope specified within the charter can be added after consensus on acceptance in the working group and approval by the responsible Area Director. Milestones: Done - Submit FRTO draft to IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC Done - Submit TCP Roadmap document to IESG for publication as a Best Current Practices RFC Done - Submit NCR Reordering Mitigation draft to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC Done - Submit overview of spoofing attacks against TCP to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Submit User TimeOut option document to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Done - Submit SYN flooding document to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Submit soft errors document to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Submit In-Window Attack draft to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Done - Submit ECN-SYN document to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Done - Submit revision of RFC 2581 to the IESG for publication as a Draft Standard Done - Submit TCP Authentication Option document to the IESG for Proposed Standard RFC Done - Submit ICMP attack document to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Submit TCP Early-Retransmit document to the IESG for Experimental RFC Jul 2009 - Submit update to RFC 1323 to the IESG for Proposed Standard RFC Done - Submit MSS text revision originally from RFC 1323 appendix to the IESG for Proposed Standard RFC Done - Submit TCP Urgent Pointer draft to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Aug 2010 - Submit document on security hardening of TCP implementations to the IESG for publication as a Best Current Practices RFC Done - Submit document on the use of SACK data to trigger loss recovery to the IESG for Proposed Standard Done - Submit document on mitigation of 'Long Connectivity Disruptions' to the IESG for Experimental Done - Submit document on moving undeployed TCP extensions to Historic status to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Submit RFC2988bis document to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard Done - Submit document updating the NewReno RFC 3782 to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard Sep 2011 - Submit document on increasing the initial window to IESG as Experimental Done - Submit RFC1948bis document to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard May 2012 - Submit document on a proportional rate reduction mechanism to the IESG as Experimental Sep 2012 - Submit document on shared use of experimental TCP options to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Sep 2012 - Submit document on a TCP fast open mechanism to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 28 19:14:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5140711E8114; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EpqlHiYY81Nh; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E892E11E80FA; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:14:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120629021430.6265.41739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:14:30 -0700 Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Subject: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 29 Jun 2012 02:14:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Increasing TCP's Initial Window Author(s) : Jerry Chu Nandita Dukkipati Yuchung Cheng Matt Mathis Filename : draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04.txt Pages : 24 Date : 2012-06-28 Abstract: This document proposes an experiment to increase the permitted TCP initial window (IW) from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in RFC 3390, to 10 segments, with a fallback to the existing recommendation when performance issues are detected. It discusses the motivation behind the increase, the advantages and disadvantages of the higher initial window, and presents results from several large scale experiments showing that the higher initial window improves the overall performance of many web services without resulting in a congestion collapse. The document closes with a discussion of usage and deployment for further experimental purpose recommended by the IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From hkchu@google.com Thu Jun 28 19:24:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB40921F85D0 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFj8dY71t32x for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA6E21F85E5 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so4239095lbb.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; bh=klrPjaip7CCLTSPBqyyd7RUN3LIa+TzaiMB/P6dpnGk=; b=GR06NaRbAzcbdQhQ/NA1TGomm0bwPRV7pjNvPjTl9xAHuzURSWn5Ua75Oyg6eKEmjr hiPYbNH1osp/anvKpDQqZ3eKjYUWhaTWg2DTWdRTP6S3T0YVDQITR07cbVdCTuR8m7zp fCw4GSsFJ1yubRbIk+z71t3/BnbFniAL9K7pyoefFAX8iUeBk/z71JLP7tzpDRmCd/gd z8SwQbS08AlH876LWYI/u0nR4fh5Ze/CgH72Rs8d6gAeF8m8eV1FQER5DZIECo9mlSJ2 E1Z3lybqpLKvnXcSyn1e0cd5x6go+ai3UIKw8buhVweBmgwNjwzUuppV4l/2vQLHTcoj iHQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=klrPjaip7CCLTSPBqyyd7RUN3LIa+TzaiMB/P6dpnGk=; b=HXP3kr33g6JjBkS3Tp9RCO98ai+JGScX35fvZ/VeTMKcqgDSVrgtDNDVUDDs7bxjll dnf/p1k875LYtiZckkDu85dtGFRkxwAJxcHxKDWm+Qluz9g75AfovaG+pPtfUz52anDP gnhKDWmK8o4OAwR9mlyDJc16x856xk3O92ZRDwHOIhaciEh1ggL46z6I7sj9fBtMeq/2 EOLFSAuwKcWFOjXDGGY7ncQxm6nPmVVpWwQ9/8cApQZCUYOOaAJsFlD7yFMlVK/MrI5V Dk+qi3vNjNfN5gZjspWOO+TIyy77GjRBruuTEykNq/smGR6URn5nSi6gNHk1OHsem0FF RSnw== Received: by 10.152.131.37 with SMTP id oj5mr1522117lab.14.1340936646667; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.131.37 with SMTP id oj5mr1522102lab.14.1340936646468; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.6.1 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120629021430.6265.41739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120629021430.6265.41739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:24:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jerry Chu To: tcpm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXGQhN6eBjj2oPp9ZF5vODx0mZV9r5YvQUffxtTh/ZwyjxhwhZ9yo+G25BvUIhJGmKhV9n40Zmp+iisaYwY9Y50N46eAcrQ3/GXNMYQfetefdf+ytrjTt0GxjzlS3tqJtEqLx2ucYcDgUlo0h2pJFk9TyKaWd9v6j7MHQTQdCTp4VeF+w= Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04.txt X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 29 Jun 2012 02:24:09 -0000 Draft revision for WGLC - changes are concentrated in Abstract, Section 1 Introduction, Section 7 Disadvantages of Larger Initial Windows for the Net= work, and Section 12 Usage and Deployment Recommendations. Jerry On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > =A0This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions = Working Group of the IETF. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Increasing TCP's Initial Windo= w > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Jerry Chu > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Nandita Dukkipati > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Yuchung Cheng > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Matt Mathis > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04.txt > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 24 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-06-28 > > Abstract: > =A0 This document proposes an experiment to increase the permitted TCP > =A0 initial window (IW) from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in > =A0 RFC 3390, to 10 segments, with a fallback to the existing > =A0 recommendation when performance issues are detected. It discusses the > =A0 motivation behind the increase, the advantages and disadvantages of > =A0 the higher initial window, and presents results from several large > =A0 scale experiments showing that the higher initial window improves the > =A0 overall performance of many web services without resulting in a > =A0 congestion collapse. The document closes with a discussion of usage > =A0 and deployment for further experimental purpose recommended by the > =A0 IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm From michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jun 29 02:13:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8AF21F86FC for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mmCz9G2TCcbz for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4596D21F86F4 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q5T94LIH004671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:13:15 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:12:14 +0200 From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" To: "tcpm@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:12:13 +0200 Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Call for TCPM agenda items at IETF-84 Thread-Index: Ac1OvikPqCyr/femRCKuOsuRBCvaAwHGK90g Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB818@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Cc: "tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [tcpm] FW: Call for TCPM agenda items at IETF-84 X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 29 Jun 2012 09:13:22 -0000 Hi, TCPM got tentatively assigned the following slot:=20 Monday, Morning Session I 0900-1130 If you haven't done already, please send agenda requests to the chairs. Thanks Michael -----Original Message----- From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pas= i Sarolahti Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:24 AM To: tcpm@ietf.org Subject: [tcpm] Call for TCPM agenda items at IETF-84 Hi, The chairs are starting to prepare the TCPM agenda for the Vancouver meetin= g. If you want to give a presentation, please send us the usual information= : * Title and draft name * Speaker * Amount of time requested At the moment we have requested a 2.5-hour slot. The draft meeting agenda w= ill be published on June 28. We hope you could indicate your plans by then,= so that we get some idea if the 2.5-hour slot is sufficient. The deadline = for WG agendas is July 18, but if there are many requests, the agenda may g= et full before that. Thanks! - Pasi & the TCPM chairs _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm