Quick-Start for TCP and IP
RFC 4782

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Lars Eggert) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-11)
This is a very interesting and great spec.
But I still worry about the practical tradeoff
for early deployers implied by the experimental 

    Measurement studies of interactions between transport protocols and
    middleboxes [MAF04] show that for 70% of the web servers
    investigated, no connection is established if the TCP SYN packet
    contains an unknown IP option  ...
    If the TCP sender doesn't receive a response to the SYN or SYN/ACK
    packet containing the Quick-Start Request, then the TCP sender
    SHOULD resend the SYN or SYN/ACK packet without the Quick-Start

And the cost evaluation in Section 9.2 does not take this
into account at all, as far as I can see.

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-11)
    If the tunnel ingress for the simple tunnel is at a router, the IP
    TTL of the inner header is generally decremented during forwarding
    before tunnel encapsulation takes place.

This is not true for L2TP tunnels, though I understand that the document is not making any specific claim about L2TP at this time. For IPinIP and GRE tunnels, the TTL is decremented on ingress and egress for each tunnel. For L2TP, it is only decremented at an LNS, which is typically the egress of the tunnel.

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection