[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
From: Joe Touch
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:21:20 -0700
Hi, Ananth,

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> +1
> FWIW, there is a recent proposal which talks about enhancing TCP
> checksums as well :-
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-anumita-tcpm-stronger-checksum/

I was wondering why this didn't just use the alternate checksum option (they
talk about it, but it's not clear why they don't just assume that path).

> The above proposal tries to leverage on the TCP alternate checksum
> option. My thinking it may be useful to have a "TCP generalized checksum
> option" which can give the flexibility for a TCP stack to choose from a
> set of checksum algorithms (of course the default stays what it is today
> ;-) 

The question is whether we need a "generalized" such option, or whether the
current alternate checksum is basically sufficient, given a table of appropriate
algorithms and algorithm IDs. There are already 253 available ID values left ;-)


tcpm mailing list
[email protected]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>