Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-16: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is looking good. A few small comments: ENO provides a framework in which two endpoints can agree on a TCP encryption protocol or _TEP_ out of multiple possible TEPs. For future compatibility, TEPs can vary widely in terms of wire format, Nit: instead of "or _TEP_" I would say (_TEP_). These are the same thing suboptions, which we term a _vacuous_ SYN-form ENO option. If either host sends a vacuous ENO option, it follows that there are no valid TEP identifiers for the connection and hence the connection MUST fall do you mean "vacuous SYN-form ENO option' here? (1) A -> B: SYN ENO<a=0,X,Y> (2) B -> A: SYN-ACK Oh, I now see why you were sad. I meant *b=0*, so it makes clear why the roles resolve properly. My bad. I agree you don't need to show a=0 all the time. So sorry. _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list Tcpinc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
