On 3/23/2015 12:46 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Yuchung Cheng <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > TCPM has scheduled a discussion of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo in the > upcoming meeting [1]. At this stage, TCPM is really interested in feedback > from implementers and potential users, e.g., regarding feature gaps or > deployment problems. > > Which (experimental) TCP feature requires EDO? Does tcpcrypt > require EDO? > > > Well, SACK? But, I guess common cases will be a combination of > extensions, not a specific one.
SACK can use as much space as it is given, AFAICT ;-) However, there are no options that *depend* on EDO yet because EDO hasn't been available that long. TCPCRYPT might be revised to used EDO (and EDO-SYN, or some other SYN approach) too. Then again, that would require making it work on TCP rather than on the reliable data stream delivered, but then could also be extended to allow protection against header-based tampering. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
