Subject: RE: keep RST data nonstandardized for the future!

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:37:46 -0400

Eric:

You are wrong about that. Think about it.

If a SYN is RECEIVED with the option to enable this feature, then the RST
from the SYN can be set back with the option (since you know the sender of
the SYN is capable of supporting the option).

- Bernie Volz
  IPWorks, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 3:14 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Cc: Ian Heavens; Jerry Toporek; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: keep RST data nonstandardized for the future!

> Likely, an option would be sent in a SYN to advertise the ability to
> support the instrumentation option. Lack of a reply with a similar
> option in the SYN/ACK would mean that the peer does not support the
> option and hence it would not be used. (This is similar to how other
> options, such as SACK, work.)

In the case of RST being issued in response to the SYN request, there
would be no successful negotiation.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                      http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols        http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:34:18 -0700

It would certainly work for advertising availability. But in cases where
"negotiation" was required (your word), it would not work (SYN/RST/RST
is one example).

I think the idea of an instrumentation option is a good one. I just
wanted to point out that the act of negotiation would fail.

You were right the first time; I should have held off on comment.