IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] RFC 6298

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Sun, 10 March 2019 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A65F12796C for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 WIkeU9P_smsO for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C85127817 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id n71so1846916ota.10 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VjQdLvF/cI1DfMram80YNZGqFV+sw1hPhqIcpgIE1gU=; b=kV6egm2dA4pKc8jYGAZcLpCKStHJQpeNgrC7FGcxYxGzMKExjJwKAEBH0JNLP6ACGC Y7/bJh3jVb61/1wMB3HP9wOKeq4X1PDNfQgAvVXPgaxMo8ubHXy0msU1wkDQyuX2C1BW dmVIyOKsdDqHBLD/6rDsvEcjKSqCOlMawMnLGP8kDSFg8niDASehvX0HWYMZg+/v5AsJ zwcTZ/fgCMblq7HyCSBOrvTHrmFe7ZCfv9PbnAz+fXYUfoadd19IpelTr6FgUSPHmAPI f5y8e6Mx1gVmSvOroxNZEpONVmvmLs6o26MSy7MJDHAFBLaEc8Mhw06LZ3SScjR+TRCT UyGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VjQdLvF/cI1DfMram80YNZGqFV+sw1hPhqIcpgIE1gU=; b=JGpVr2+M6WYzbDIF5qUIMdPb/Fkjq2UOZ/C2D0qRRT2aC6Sb6sNm0HFSkNTfT9Fn5e vpOkKb/BOBuwYZQpeQr3gDB7VQ1+MEfQJ0Lol71oSe12jv2zT3KFXNg+KDlmJVP+CD5h EmzJ1OhtbYmcmfm80GnsSSEtaCqqoOltJDj/xPPmJhpPfqqgCSJxkLvf0aVmLbdijBcy rB72KJaMQqgctlj9qg8Iwgd2tkqfp3pdIk+TulRoBvrx5Kb4BIEA2Dd007GmQ26xKmVX 0i2eWtCWJoczLikcLtX1JEXxZ5/FYppTAyWsWzx2bZ0L0PXrzsfvEoR47q8EC+z+lRsE WTMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWBWwIUVZi83ZMQyo4Dg7iodNxhTp5A5M4Om0Sr7ChAQUx88aWk y8YgbBzWa+YK0iV5GTV2kVgSj5tiQ06F4qA/YylPUQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmHc1zSKJlLJrURFeAToXGx5PCQm6ywO/BLDKj+KTsuftDcCxga6qjxQR+lWDEtU0W1bBCmfUnATzYvuyvygY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5cc8:: with SMTP id r8mr17273386oti.104.1552232211427; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 08:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN4PR0701MB377691BE579AE6AF8D12A9F2AE4E0@SN4PR0701MB3776.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D2534BF@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D2534BF@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:36:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CADVnQykSkqybi2p38C8xmA3TDzGM3+9R5G5zf-X1ZX+vEgBPcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: Jonathan Walter <jwalter03@frostburg.edu>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000929ab50583bf3922"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/1sdBsbp8lyUm8C1RmUQ8UISI3Us>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] RFC 6298
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 15:36:55 -0000

These slide decks also have some motivating context for the 1 second value:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/tcpm-1.pdf
  (" ~2.5% connections with RTT > 1sec")

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/slides/iccrg-1.pdf
  ("~97.5% of connections have RTT < 1 second")

neal


On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 11:32 AM Scharf, Michael <
Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
>
>
> You can parse the list archive of the TCPM working group, most notably for
> the term “rfc2988bis”:
>
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/?q=rfc2988bis
>
>
>
> That, as well as the appendix of RFC 6298, is probably a good starting
> point.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Walter
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:35 PM
> *To:* tcpm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [tcpm] RFC 6298
>
>
>
> Dear IETF,
>
>
>
> I am studying computer science at Frostburg State University and doing a
> mini research project on calculating RTO timer..
>
> I am interested in background discussions around changes that were made
> when the latest RFC was revised in 2011, especially around how the 1 second
> minimum was determined and why it was reduced to that from 3 seconds.
> Please could you let me know if there is a public discussion board that
> would have background discussions posted I could read to gets some
> background history?
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Jon Walter
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email