Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz)

Andrew Newton wrote:
>> 3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
>>     various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
>
> TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP.  But for very short and quick answers 
> (and lots of them, such as domain availability checks) UDP is better.  
> Don't know what you mean by tricks, but the deflation is optional.
my congestion control alarm went off.

after reviewing the document, it's still ringing.

There's nothing in the document that says "if you want to send 4000 
requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down 
your sending rate to that server".

The word "retransmit" does not occur in the document.
The word "packet loss" does not occur in the document.
The word "congestion" does not occur in the document.

4000-byte UDP packets will have 3x the drop rate of 1500-byte UDP 
packets. So retransmissions are more likely than with DNS over the same 
wire. I can't envision an implementation of this that wouldn't 
retransmit. So guidance is needed.

Using UDP is fine, but I regard this specification as incomplete.

                       Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf