Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Quick-Start for TCP and IP

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:55:17 -0700

Ashraf -

>Here are my queries:
> 1. Draft says that Quick start request option will be included as a part
>of IP header, while  quick start response as part of
>      TCP header. Is it because the  quick start response need not be
>processed by IP?

Yep.  This follows the pattern of ECN, with the ECN field in the IP
header for routers to modify, and the feedback from receiver to sender
in the transport header for routers to ignore.  We will add a sentence 
about the parallel to the draft.

>2. I guess IP header option should keep 32 bit boundry (i.e multiple of 4
>bytes ). But in the case of quick start request, it  has got 5 bytes. Is
>the padding to be done here assumed?

Good point.  We will say something about that in the revised version
of the draft.  

If the community ended up thinking that Quick-Start was a good thing
to pursue further, then we would have to see if the longer option
field was a problem.  One would get a four-byte option by having a
k-bit Initial Rate field and an (8-k)-bit QS Nonce, for example,
but that doesn't really strike me as a viable alternative.

- Sally

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