Re: [DNSOP] Stuart and I had a discussion about the flow control issue in your DISCUSS (Mirja)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Great, thanks!

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> thanks for the quick reply and discussion.
>
> > Am 02.08.2018 um 20:03 schrieb Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > The issue is that turning on TCP_NODELAY doesn't actually do the right
> thing, nor does removing the delayed ACK timer.   Both of these are
> heuristic solutions that apply across the entire session, and have negative
> consequences (which is why they are on by default).
> >
> > What we need is actually a very small thing, in a sense: the ability to
> say "I got the message, and will not be responding to it," so that the
> existing heuristic is satisfied in exactly the same way that sending a
> response satisfies it.
> >
> > It's true that on a gigabit ethernet, just turning off the heuristics
> and sending whatever we have whenever we have it isn't likely to cause
> problems, but this stuff also has to work in home networks and over
> wide-area links and even low-bandwidth mobile links, where we can't assume
> that we have as much headroom as we do on a gigabit ethernet link.
> >
> > We think that it is probably worth the IETF thinking about this problem,
> yet at the same time that's out of scope for the current work.   But not
> talking about the problem at all in the current work means that when the
> solution to this problem starts appearing in APIs, which seems likely,
> there will be no advice in the document about what the implementation
> should do.
> >
> > What we propose to do therefore is to put in a paragraph that briefly
> mentions the issue and says "when unacknowledged messages are received, if
> an API is present to inform the TCP layer that no response will be sent,
> the responder SHOULD do so."   And then the text from the section as it was
> when you put the DISCUSS on it would go in an Appendix, so that it's clear
> what's going on.   We can then reference this section in the text telling
> the implementation what to do.
> >
> > Will this satisfy your DISCUSS (assuming that we don't make mistakes in
> how we document this)?
>
> Yes, please proceed and make the changes. I guess we can work on the
> wording if you have text and if needed but moving it to the appendix makes
> it less critical and is probably the right thing to do.
>
> Thanks!
> Mirja
>
>
>
>