Internet DRAFT - draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo
draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo
TCPM WG J. Touch
Internet Draft USC/ISI
Updates: 793 Wes Eddy
Intended status: Standards Track MTI Systems
Expires: January 2015 July 2, 2014
TCP Extended Data Offset Option
draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
Abstract
TCP segments include a Data Offset field to indicate space for TCP
options, but the size of the field can limit the space available for
complex options that have evolved. This document updates RFC 793
with an optional TCP extension to that space to support the use of
multiple large options such as SACK with either TCP Multipath or TCP
AO. It also explains why the initial SYN of a connection cannot be
extending as a single segment.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Requirements for Extending TCP's Data Offset...................3
4. The TCP EDO Option.............................................3
5. TCP EDO Interaction with TCP...................................6
5.1. TCP User Interface........................................6
5.2. TCP States and Transitions................................6
5.3. TCP Segment Processing....................................6
5.4. Impact on TCP Header Size.................................6
5.5. Connectionless Resets.....................................7
5.6. ICMP Handling.............................................8
6. Interactions with Middleboxes..................................8
7. Comparison to Previous Proposals...............................9
7.1. EDO Criteria..............................................9
7.2. Summary of Approaches....................................10
7.3. Extended Segments........................................11
7.4. TCPx2....................................................11
7.5. LOO/SLO..................................................12
7.6. LOIC.....................................................12
7.7. Problems with Extending the Initial SYN..................13
8. Security Considerations.......................................14
9. IANA Considerations...........................................14
10. References...................................................14
10.1. Normative References....................................14
10.2. Informative References..................................15
11. Acknowledgments..............................................16
1. Introduction
TCP's Data Offset is a 4-bit field, which indicates the number of
32-bit words of the entire TCP header [RFC793]. This limits the
current total header size to 60 bytes, of which the basic header
occupies 20, leaving 40 bytes for options. These 40 bytes are
increasingly becoming a limitation to the development of advanced
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
capabilities, such as when SACK [RFC2018][RFC6675] is combined with
either Multipath TCP [RFC6824] or TCP-AO [RFC5925].
This document specifies the TCP Extended Data Offset (EDO) option,
and is independent of (and thus compatible with) IPv4 and IPv6. EDO
extends the space available for TCP options, except for the initial
SYN segment (i.e., SYN and not ACK, the first segment of a new
connection). This document also explains why the option space of a
single initial SYN segment cannot be extended without severe impact
on TCP's initial handshake.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
indicates a compliance requirement statement using the key words
listed above. This convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying
or finding the explicit compliance requirements of this RFC.
3. Requirements for Extending TCP's Data Offset
The primary goal of extending the TCP Data Offset field is to
increase the space available for TCP options in all segments except
the initial SYN.
An important requirement of any such extension is that it not impact
legacy endpoints. Endpoints seeking to use this new option should
not incur additional delay or segment exchanges to connect to either
new endpoints supporting this option or legacy endpoints without
this option. We call this a "backward downgrade" capability.
4. The TCP EDO Option
TCP EDO extends the option space for all segments except the initial
SYN (i.e., SYN set and ACK not set). The EDO option is organized as
indicated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. For initial SYN segments (i.e.,
those whose ACK bit is not set), the EDO request option consists of
the required Kind and Length fields only. All other segments
optionally use the EDO length option, which adds a Header_Length
field (in network-standard byte rder), indicating the length of the
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
entire TCP header in bytes. The codepoint value of the EDO Kind is
EDO-OPT.
+--------+--------+
| Kind | Length |
+--------+--------+
Figure 1 TCP EDO request option
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind | Length | Header_length |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 2 TCP EDO length option
EDO support is determined in both directions using the same
exchange. An endpoint seeking to enable EDO support includes the EDO
request option in the initial SYN.
>> Connections using EDO MUST negotiate its availability during the
initial three-way handshake.
>> An endpoint confirming EDO support MUST respond with EDO length
option in its SYN-ACK.
The EDO length option is required in SYN-ACKs when confirming
support for EDO. The SYN-ACK thus can take advantage of EDO, using
it to extend its option space. If such extension is not required,
then EDO would be equal to 4 * Data Offset (i.e., EDO would indicate
in bytes the same length indicated by Data Offset in words).
>> Once negotiated on a connection, EDO MAY be present as needed on
other segments in either direction. The EDO option SHOULD NOT be
used if the total option space needed can be accommodated by the
existing Data Offset field.
>> The EDO request option (i.e., whose option length is 2) MAY occur
in an initial SYN as desired (e.g., by the user/application), but
MUST NOT be inserted in other segments. If the EDO request option is
received, it MUST be silently ignored.
>> The EDO length option MAY occur in segments other than the
initial SYN if EDO has been negotiated on a connection. If EDO has
not been negotiated and agreed, the EDO length option MUST be
silently ignored. The EDO length option MUST NOT be sent in an
initial SYN segment, and MUST be silently ignored and not
acknowledged if so received.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
EDO extends the space available for options, but does not consume
space unless needed. Segments that don't need the additional space
can use the existing Data Offset field as currently specified
[RFC793]. When processing a segment, EDO needs to be visible within
the area indicated by the Data Offset field, so that processing can
use the EDO Header_length to override the Data Offset for that
segment.
>> The EDO length option MUST occur within the length of the TCP
Data Offset.
>> The EDO length option indicates the total length of the header.
The EDO Header_length field MUST NOT exceed that of the total
segment size (i.e., TCP Length). The EDO Header_length SHOULD be a
multiple of 4 to simplify processing.
>> The EDO request option SHOULD be aligned on a 16-bit boundary and
the EDO length option SHOULD be aligned on a 32-bit boundary, in
both cases for simpler processing.
For example, a segment with only EDO would have a Data Offset of 6,
where EDO would be the first option processed, at which point the
EDO length option would override the Data Offset and processing
would continue until the end of the TCP header as indicated by the
EDO Header_length field.
There are cases where it might be useful to process other options
before EDO, notably those that determine whether the TCP header is
valid, such as authentication, encryption, or alternate checksums.
In those cases, the EDO length option is preferably the first option
after a validation option, and the payload after the Data Offset is
treated as user data for the purposes of validation.
>> The EDO length option SHOULD occur as early as possible, either
first or just after any authentication or encryption, and SHOULD be
the last option covered by the Data Offset value.
Other options are generally handled in the same manner as when the
EDO option is not active, unless they interact with other options.
One such example is TCP-AO [RFC5925], which optionally ignores the
contents of TCP options, so it would need to be aware of EDO to
operate correctly when options are excluded from the HMAC
calculation.
>> Options that depend on other options, such as TCP-AO [RFC5925]
(which may include or exclude options in MAC calculations) MUST also
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
be augmented to interpret the EDO length option to operate
correctly.
5. TCP EDO Interaction with TCP
The following subsections describe how EDO interacts with the TCP
specification [RFC793].
5.1. TCP User Interface
The TCP EDO option is enabled on a connection using a mechanism
similar to any other per-connection option. In Unix systems, this is
typically performed using the 'setsockopt' function.
>> Implementations can also employ system-wide defaults, however
systems SHOULD NOT use this extension by default to avoid
interfering with legacy applications.
5.2. TCP States and Transitions
TCP EDO does not alter the existing TCP state or state transition
mechanisms.
5.3. TCP Segment Processing
TCP EDO alters segment processing during the TCP option processing
step. Once detected, the TCP EDO length option overrides the TCP
Data Offset field for all subsequent option processing. Option
processing continues at the next option after the EDO length option.
Implementers need to be careful about the potential for offload
support interfering with this option. The EDO data needs to be
passed to the protocol stack as part of the option space, not
integrated with the user segment, to allow the offload to
independently determine user data segment boundaries and combine
them correctly with the extended option data.
5.4. Impact on TCP Header Size
The TCP EDO request option increases SYN header length by a minimum
of 2 bytes. Currently popular SYN options total 19 bytes, which
leaves more than enough room for the EDO request:
o SACK permitted (2 bytes in SYN, optionally 2 + 8N bytes after)
[RFC2018][RFC6675]
o Timestamp (10 bytes) [RFC1323]
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
o Window scale (3 bytes) [RFC1323]
o MSS option (4 bytes) [RFC793]
Adding the EDO option would result in a total of 21 bytes of SYN
option space. Subsequent segments would use 19 bytes of option space
without any SACK blocks or allow up to 4 SACK blocks before needing
to use EDO; with EDO, the number of SACK blocks or additional
options would be substantially increased.
TCP EDO can also be negotiated in SYNs with either of the following
options:
o TCP-AO (authentication) (16 bytes) [RFC5925]
o Multipath TCP (12 bytes in SYN and SYN-ACK, 20 after) [RFC6824]
Including TCP-AO increases the SYN option space use to 37 bytes;
with Multipath TCP the use is 33 bytes. When Multipath TCP is
enabled with the typical options, later segments might require 39
bytes without SACK, thus effectively disabling the SACK option
unless EDO is also supported on at least non-SYN segments.
The full combination of the above options (49 bytes including EDO)
does not fit in the existing SYN option space and (as noted) that
space cannot be extended within a single SYN segment. There has been
a proposal to change TS to a 2 byte "TS permitted" signal in the
initial SYN, provided it can be safely enabled during the connection
later or might be avoided completely [Ni14]. Even using "TS-
permitted", the total space is still too large to support in the
initial SYN without SYN option space extension [To14].
The EDO option has negligible impact on other headers, because it
can either come first or just after security information, and in
either case the additional 4 bytes are easily accommodated within
the TCP Data Offset length. Once the EDO option is processed, the
entirety of the remainder of the TCP segment is available for any
remaining options.
5.5. Connectionless Resets
A RST may arrive during a currently active connection or may be
needed to cleanup old state from an abandoned connection. The latter
occurs when a new SYN is sent to an endpoint with matching existing
connection state, at which point that endpoint responds with a RST
and both ends remove stale information.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
The EDO option is not mandatory in any TCP segment, except the SYN
and SYN-ACK of the three-way handshake to establish its support.
>> The EDO length option MAY occur in a RST when the endpoint has
connection state that has negotiated EDO. However, unless the RST is
generated by an incoming segment that includes an EDO option, the
RST MUST NOT include the EDO length option.
5.6. ICMP Handling
ICMP responses are intended to include the IP and the port fields of
TCP and UDP headers of typical TCP/IP and UDP/IP packets [RFC792].
This includes the first 8 data bytes of the original datagram,
intended to include the transport port numbers used for connection
demultiplexing. Later specifications encourage returning as much of
the original payload as possible [RFC1812]. In either case, legacy
options or new options in the EDO extension area might or might not
be included, and so options are generally not assumed to be part of
ICMP processing anyway.
6. Interactions with Middleboxes
Any new TCP option may be impacted by the presence of any on-path
device that examines or modifies transport headers [RFC3234]. Boxes
that parse or modify TCP options need to follow the same
requirements of TCP endpoints in supporting EDO, or they could
interfere with connections. The primary concern is so-called
"transparent" rewriting proxies, which modify TCP segment boundaries
and thus would mix option information with user data if they do not
support EDO. Such devices interfere with many other TCP options, and
although their use is not common they would interfere with
connections that use EDO.
More common are NATs, which rewrite IP address and/or transport port
fields. NATs are not affected by the EDO option.
Deep-packet inspection systems that inspect TCP segment payloads or
attempt to reconstitute the data stream would incorrectly include
options, which might interfere with their operation.
It may be important to detect misbehavior that could cause EDO space
to be misinterpreted as user data. In such cases, EDO SHOULD be used
in conjunction with integrity protection mechanisms, such as IPsec,
TCP-AO, etc. It is useful to note that such protection helps find
only non-compliant components.
---
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
?? should we include a header checksum, as suggested by Oliver
Bonaventure, too? Should it be integrated with EDO or independent?
If so, we either need one of the following:
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind | Length | Header_length |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| EDO-checksum |
+--------+--------+
Figure 3 TCP EDO length + sum option
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind | Length | Header_checksum |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 4 TCP header checksum option
The former adds a header checksum to EDO - this could be optional or
required, and its presence can be determined from the option length.
The checksum would be over only the additional EDO space.
The latter requires a new option and we'd need to decide what the
option covered. It could cover just the option space.
Finally, another option would be to try to make rewriting
middleboxes fail by some other, more opaque means - such as using
DO=0 when EDO is used as suggested by John Leslie (but this would
also require considering whether EDO would be required on all
packets, or just on DO=0, as well as where EDO would be and whether
it could precede security/integrity options such as TCP-AO).
7. Comparison to Previous Proposals
EDO is the latest in a long line of attempts to increase TCP option
space [Al06][Ed08][Ko04][Ra12][Yo11]. The following is a comparison
of these approaches to EDO, based partly on a previous summary
[Ra12]. This comparison differs from that summary by using a
different set of success criteria.
7.1. EDO Criteria
Our criteria for a successful solution are as follows:
o Zero-cost fallback to legacy endpoints.
o Minimal impact on middlebox compatibility.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
o No additional side-effects.
Zero-cost fallback requires that upgraded hosts incur no penalty for
attempting to use EDO. This disqualifies dual-stack approaches,
because the client might have to delay connection establishment to
wait for the preferred connection mode to complete. Note that the
impact of legacy endpoints that silently reflect unknown options are
not considered, as they are already non-compliant with existing TCP
requirements [RFC793].
Minimal impact on middlebox compatibility requires that EDO works
through simple NAT and NAPT boxes, which modify IP addresses and
ports and recompute IPv4 header and TCP segment checksums.
Middleboxes that reject unknown options or that process segments in
detail without regard for unknown options are not considered; they
process segments as if they were an endpoint but do so in ways that
are not compliant with existing TCP requirements (e.g., they should
have rejected the initial SYN because of its unknown options rather
than silently relaying it).
EDO also attempts to avoid creating side-effects, such as might
happen if options were split across multiple TCP segments (which
could arrive out of order or be lost) or across different TCP
connections (which could fail to share fate through firewalls or
NAT/NAPTs).
These requirements are similar to those noted in [Ra12], but EDO
groups cases of segment modification beyond address and port - such
as rewriting, segment drop, sequence number modification, and option
stripping - as already in violation of existing TCP requirements
regarding unknown options, and so we do not consider their impact on
this new option.
7.2. Summary of Approaches
There are three basic ways in which TCP option space extension has
been attempted:
1. Use of a TCP option.
2. Redefinition of the existing TCP header fields.
3. Use of option space in multiple TCP segments (split across
multiple segments).
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
A TCP option is the most direct way to extend the option space and
is the basis of EDO. This approach cannot extend the option space of
the initial SYN.
Redefining existing TCP header fields can be used to either contain
additional options or as a pointer indicating alternate ways to
interpret the segment payload. All such redefinitions make it
difficult to achieve zero-impact backward compatibility, both with
legacy endpoints and middleboxes.
Splitting option space across separate segments can create
unintended side-effects, such as increased delay to deal with path
latency or loss differences.
The following discusses three of the most notable past attempts to
extend the TCP option space: Extended Segments, TCPx2, LOO/SLO, and
LOIC. [Ra12] suggests a few other approaches, including use of TCP
option cookies, reuse/overload of other TCP fields (e.g., the URG
pointer), or compressing TCP options. None of these is compatible
with legacy endpoints or middleboxes.
7.3. Extended Segments
TCP Extended Segments redefined the meaning of currently unused
values of the Data Offset (DO) field [Ko04]. TCP defines DO as
indicating the length of the TCP header, including options, in 32-
bit words. The default TCP header with no options is 5 such words,
so the minimum currently valid DO value is 5 (meaning 40 bytes of
option space). This document defines interpretations of values 0-4:
DO=0 means 48 bytes of option space, DO=1 means 64, DO=2 means 128,
DO=3 means 256, and DO=4 means unlimited (e.g., the entire payload
is option space). This variant negotiates the use of this capability
by using one of these invalid DO values in the initial SYN.
Use of this variant is not backward-compatible with legacy TCP
implementations, whether at the desired endpoint or on middleboxes.
The variant also defines a way to initiate the feature on the
passive side, e.g., using an invalid DO during the SYN-ACK when the
initial SYN had a valid DO. This capability allows either side to
initiate use of the feature but is also not backward compatible.
7.4. TCPx2
TCPx2 redefines legacy TCP headers by basically doubling all TCP
header fields [Al06]. It relies on a new transport protocol number
to indicate its use, defeating backward compatibility with all
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
existing TCP capabilities, including firewalls, NATs/NAPTs, and
legacy endpoints and applications.
7.5. LOO/SLO
The TCP Long Option (LO, [Ed08]) is very similar to EDO, except that
presence of LO results in ignoring the existing DO field and that LO
is required to be the first option. EDO considers the need for other
fields to be first and declares that the EDO is the last option as
indicated by the DO field value. Unlike LO, EDO is not required in
every segment once negotiated, saving 6 bytes if not actively
needed.
The TCP Long Option draft also specified the SYN Long Option (SLO)
[Ed08]. If SLO is used in the initial SYN and successfully
negotiated, it is used in each subsequent segment until all of the
initial SYN options are transmitted.
LO is backward compatible, as is SLO; in both cases, endpoints not
supporting the option would not respond with the option, and in both
cases the initial SYN is not itself extended.
SLO does modify the three-way handshake because the connection isn't
considered completely established until the first data byte is
ACKed. Legacy TCP can establish a connection even in the absence of
data. SLO also changes the semantics of the SYN-ACK; for legacy TCP,
this completes the active side connection establishment, where in
SLO an additional data ACK is required. A connection whose initial
SYN options have been confirmed in the SYN-ACK might still fail upon
receipt of additional options sent in later SLO segments. This case
- of late negotiation fail - is not addressed in the specification.
7.6. LOIC
TCP Long Options by Invalid Checksum is a dual-stack approach that
uses two initial SYNS to initiate all updated connections [Yo11].
One SYN negotiates the new option and the other SYN payload contains
only the entire options. The negotiation SYN is compliant with
existing procedures, but the option SYN has a deliberately incorrect
TCP checksum (decremented by 2). A legacy endpoint would discard the
segment with the incorrect checksum and respond to the negotiation
SYN without the LO option.
Use of the option SYN and its incorrect checksum both interfere with
other legacy components. Segments with incorrect checksums will be
silently dropped by most middleboxes, including NATs/NAPTs. Use of
two SYNs creates side-effects that can delay connections to upgraded
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
endpoints, notably when the option SYN is lost or the SYNs arrive
out of order. Finally, by not allowing other options in the
negotiation SYN, all connections to legacy endpoints either use no
options or require a separate connection attempt (either concurrent
or subsequent).
7.7. Problems with Extending the Initial SYN
The key difficulty with most previous proposals is the desire to
extend the option space in all TCP segments, including the initial
SYN, i.e., SYN with no ACK, typically the first segment of a
connection. It has proven difficult to extend space in this initial
SYN in the absence of prior negotiation while maintaining current
TCP three-way handshake properties.
A new TCP option cannot extend the Data Offset of a single TCP
initial SYN segment. All TCP segments, including the initial SYN,
may include user data in the payload data [RFC793], and this can be
useful for some proposed features such as TCP Fast Open [Ch14].
Legacy endpoints that ignore the new option would process the
payload contents as user data and send an ACK. Once ACK'd, this data
cannot be removed from the user stream.
The six Reserved TCP header bits cannot be redefined easily, because
the original specification did not require their contents to be
ignored, even though three of those bits have already been redefined
(ECE/CWR [RFC3168] and NS [RFC3540]). Legacy endpoints are required
to drop TCP segments where those bits are not zero, making it
difficult to assume backward downgrade.
TCP initial SYN (SYN and not ACK) segments can use every other TCP
header field except the Acknowledgement number, which is not used
because the ACK field is not set. In all other segments, all fields
except the three remaining Reserved header bits are actively used.
The total amount of available header fields, in either case, is
insufficient to be useful in extending the option space.
The representation of TCP options can be optimized to minimize the
space needed. In such cases, multiple Kind and Length fields are
combined, so that a new Kind would indicate a specific combination
of options, whose order is fixed and whose length is indicated by
one Length field. Most TCP options use fields whose size is much
larger than the required Kind and Length components, so the
resulting efficiency is typically insufficient for additional
options.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
The option space of an initial SYN segment might be extended by
using multiple initial segments (e.g., multiple SYNs or a SYN and
non-SYN) or based on the context of previous or parallel
connections. Because of their potential complexity, these approaches
are addressed in a separate document [To14].
Option space cannot be extended in outer layer headers, e.g., IPv4
or IPv6. These layers typically try to avoid extensions altogether,
to simplify forwarding processing at routers. Introducing new shim
layers to accommodate additional option space would interfere with
deep-packet inspection mechanisms that are in widespread use.
As a result, EDO does not attempt to extend the space available for
options in TCP initial SYNs. It does extend that space in all other
segments (including SYN-ACK), which has always been trivially
possible once an option is defined.
8. Security Considerations
It is meaningless to have the Data Offset further exceed the
position of the EDO data offset option.
>> When the EDO length option is present, the EDO length option
SHOULD be the last non-null option covered by the TCP Data Offset,
because it would be the last option affected by Data Offset.
This also makes it more difficult to use the Data Offset field as a
covert channel.
9. IANA Considerations
We request that, upon publication, this option be assigned a TCP
Option codepoint by IANA, which the RFC Editor will replace EDO-OPT
in this document with codepoint value.
This section is to be removed prior to publication as an RFC.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
10.2. Informative References
[Al06] Allman, M., "TCPx2: Don't Fence Me In", draft-allman-
tcpx2-hack-00 (work in progress), May 2006.
[Ch14] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., and A. Jain, "TCP Fast Open", draft-
ietf-tcpm-fastopen-09, June 2014.
[Ed08] Eddy, W. and A. Langley, "Extending the Space Available
for TCP Options", draft-eddy-tcp-loo-04 (work in
progress), July 2008.
[Ko04] Kohler, E., "Extended Option Space for TCP", draft-kohler-
tcpm-extopt-00 (work in progress), September 2004.
[Ni14] Nishida, Y., "A-PAWS: Alternative Approach for PAWS",
draft-nishida-tcpm-apaws-01 (work in progress), June 2014.
[Ra12] Ramaiah, A., "TCP option space extension", draft-ananth-
tcpm-tcpoptext-00 (work in progress), March 2012.
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 792.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1812] Baker, F. (Ed.), "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers,"
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, September 2001.
[RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
Issues", RFC 3234, February 2002.
[RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces", RFC
3540, June 2003.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TCP Extended Data Offset Option July 2014
[RFC6675] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Wang, L., Jarvinen, I., Kojo, M.,
and Y.. Nishida, "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm
Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP", RFC
6675, August 2012.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.
[To14] Touch, J., (et al., TBD), "Extending TCP Option Space
During Connection Establishment", draft-touch-tcp-syn-edo-
00 (work in progress), July 2014.
[Yo11] Yourtchenko, A., "Introducing TCP Long Options by Invalid
Checksum", draft-yourtchenko-tcp-loic-00 (work in
progress), April 2011.
11. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the IETF TCPM WG for their feedback,
in particular: Oliver Bonaventure, Bob Briscoe, Ted Faber, John
Leslie, Richard Scheffenegger, and Alexander Zimmerman.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Authors' Addresses
Joe Touch
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 USA
Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151
Email: touch@isi.edu
Wesley M. Eddy
MTI Systems
US
Email: wes@mti-systems.com
Touch Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 16]
