Support TCP Timestamp option

[tomDev5]

This is currently not relating to the RTT estimation, just for supporting remotes who do support it.
The generator isn't a lambda to avoid a generic.
Tests include a logic test of an established session and tests which make sure this option is only enabled if the both sides support it.

[whitequark]

Looks good at a quick glance.

[tomDev5]

Hi, I would appreciate if someone could review this PR (or approve if it indeed looks good)

[whitequark]

I would like you to also add RFC 7323 to the src/socket/tcp.rs file header, since it is also now necessary to understand the semantics. Once you're done please squash the commits.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.36493% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.21%. Comparing base (6c06cd9) to head (b4c0779).
Report is 31 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head b4c0779 differs from pull request most recent head 89e8265

Please upload reports for the commit 89e8265 to get more accurate results.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/wire/tcp.rs	73.58%	14 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #939      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.97%   79.21%   -0.77%     
==========================================
  Files          81       81              
  Lines       27831    26820    -1011     
==========================================
- Hits        22259    21245    -1014     
- Misses       5572     5575       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[tomDev5]

Ok, the codecov window is refusing to update.
all complained upon lines are integrated in tests

[whitequark]

Ok, the codecov window is refusing to update.

Yeah so codecov is having some infra issues. That's ok. I talked to their CTO, they'll fix it eventually but not yet.

[whitequark]

This is a lot better but I'd still much prefer there to be a struct for the timestamp itself with inherent method(s) to manipulate it to the current situation with extensive tuple access. I can take a closer look and propose a specific structure if you'd like.

[tomDev5]

Agreed, that made for cleaner access.

[whitequark]

Sorry, I was unclear, see inline comments.

[whitequark]

I'm on vacation for a week. Later!

[tomDev5]

@whitequark gentle ping, regarding the fixes I've made

[whitequark]

Looks great! Thanks for the work you put into this and the fixes.