Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

At 13:42 26/09/2006, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

>It is only necessary to mandate an algorithm, if things break 
>without it. This doesn't seem to be what you are saying, so I'd 
>suggest (a) too.

Agreed. Will update the draft accordingly, then.

>I'd prefer to say that the used value MUST be larger than the 
>measured RTO. So does that imply if RTO increases above the current 
>user time out that something needs to happen, we need to get the 
>correct language here. Any suggestions?

I think there are two possible ways to go here:

a) Enforcing a minimum UTO of a RTO only when *choosing* the UTO. 
(i., connections establishment, API call from the application, or 
receipt of an UTO from the remote endpoint). After all, the UTO is 
meant more to increase the User Timeout than to decrease it 
(therefore, users are expected to use long UTOs, rather than short 
ones). And this keeps things simple...

b) Everytime the RTO is updated, it should be rounded to the next 
higher value in seconds. If the current User Timeout is less than 
this value, the User Timeout should be updated, and an UTO should be 
sent to the remote TCP endpoint. This is probably "the right thing to 
do". But makes things a little more complicated.

Any thoughts?

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

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