IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 05 April 2014 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F8B1A030F; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrB_3a9yPmz7; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7B61A0035; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1284; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1396660226; x=1397869826; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kPcPWBMaYgkSSdUg+qa1uLmg6YtaMkFKqIjtAWmxbKk=; b=k02OD54QsgQY+JSJtZsn4VQLYyaOwru3WzLk28gvifAMvvOp3xjzh1ic WEPRBadrCTp5fFCP45vvivJQhbf8kgS4+oDcPwIha/6qcX7Gy3RPCxDRv NU2YKD7Hq2oECmeKvOsC/0aEEkV06UAmwQInm/mBk/scUy7ia6oMbo1qA Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FAP5WP1OtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABPCoMGgRLEEIEjFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULAgEIRjIlAgQOBQ6HYwjQJReOFVwHgySBFAEDkF+BNYZHkj+DMIIr
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,798,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="315215420"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2014 01:10:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s351APYv031584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 5 Apr 2014 01:10:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.247]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 20:10:25 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
Thread-Topic: AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09
Thread-Index: AQHPUGvSyTebJDq+aE+hBuuPkglZLw==
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 01:10:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D0C62AEA-0A78-4FFE-BDE0-AB7EB550DA1D@cisco.com>
References: <53222FC1.7040009@bogus.com> <769950FD-3E19-41E8-8698-B31A45F57657@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <769950FD-3E19-41E8-8698-B31A45F57657@netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.115]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FBF46E44-B49A-4CE6-8EF7-F9FF18F71838"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/5dJcB0mDTnIui6SPBkzgQ7Zg_MY
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:43:18 -0700
Cc: "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 01:10:35 -0000

On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:50 PM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:

> have there been any substantive changes addressing the lack of congestion control? If I recall correctly, that was the critical issue in the past. (The diff at the URL below doesn't seem to do that.)

The draft refers to RFC 5405, and indicates that while the specification doesn’t identify an upper bound on loss, any given implementation should.

For a single-packet-outstanding protocol, what would you like to see in congestion control? At most, I could imagine a comment on exponential backoff...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email