Chiming in... > 3: Section 5.3 > CCN -> CNN? > > "This overhead could be reduced by TCP Fast Open (TFO)" > > -> Yes, but the use of TLS is not mandatory in this draft. If an > implementation utilizes TFO, we might want to mention about app level > idempotency here.
We could add the following two sentences from RFC 7413 at the end of the paragraph: "However, TFO deviates from the standard TCP semantics, since the data in the SYN could be replayed to an application in some rare circumstances. Applications should not use TFO unless they can tolerate this issue, e.g., by using Transport Layer Security (TLS)." > "TCP keep-alive messages are not very useful to..." > > -> We don't need to discuss reducing the interval of keep-alive here? We could add the following sentence (again adapted from RFC 7413): "Sending TCP keep-alive probes more frequently risks draining power on mobile devices [MQXMZ11]." I am not sure how much more guidance we could give on picking an interval. And the document already explains the benefits of application-layer heartbeat messages (if applicable). Michael _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
