Hi Caerles, Michael, Thanks for the addressing the comments.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:47 AM Scharf, Michael < [email protected]> wrote: > 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)." > Works for me. > > > "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. > I agree. I think we don't need to talk about specific interval. I just thought it would be good to mention it as this is one possible way although it might not be a good approach in some cases. Thanks, -- Yoshi
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
