Re: [tcpm] [draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-07] Interaction with other time-based recovery schemes?

["Mark Allman" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nico!

> [NK] IMHO, if this is meant to be an umbrella under which
> timer-based retransmission live, this should be stated more
> clearly in the draft.

Can you give me suggestions?  I just re-read sections 1 & 2 and I'm
not sure I have better words in my head.  E.g., do you find the last
paragraph of the new context section unclear?

> The hierarchical view of
> timer that you mentioned here could be clearly stated in the
> document. Or you could try to harmonize it with the "PTO" notion
> in QUIC
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-recovery-18#section-6.2.2

(I don't follow this.  I don't think I sketched a "hierarchical
view".  So, I am confused.)

> [NK] This is the case when RACK and RTO are used conjointly in TCP.
>
> [...]
>
> And, you would like to see a note to that effect in
> S.6 (where we note that other reliability schemes could be in play)?
> If that is the point, sure, I buy that.
>
> [NK] This was my main point indeed.

So, does all this boil down to you want another example under S.6
that says (essentially) "multiple retransmission timers could be in
play"?  I.e., something analogous to the notion that is in there now
that "there may be timers and ACKs/SACKs in play" but explicitly
noting it could be more than one timer?  That sounds like a fine and
reasonable idea to me.  But, I am unclear on whether this covers
your entire comment or not.

Thanks!

allman