Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis

Thanks. How about

"Because this is similar to the case
   when a connection becomes idle, mechanisms that address idle TCP
   connections (e.g., [RFC7661]) could also be applied to TCB cache
   management such as TCP Fast Open [RFC7413] (Section 7.2)"

I think it'll help readers find the context quicker by citing the section
directly.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:04 AM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:

> Yi, Yuchung,
>
> The text was introduced in the draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-05 version in Sept
> 2018.
>
> It relates to the way in which 2140 would handle the effect of idle
> connections and how that information becomes invalid over time as long as
> the connection is idle.
>
> I.e., the idea is that 2140 could help TFP avoid bursting into the net
> more aggressively rather than backing down, as discussed in Sec 7.2 of RFC
> 7413.
>
> If our interpretation or the text would benefit from revision, please
> suggest alternate text.
>
> Joe
>
> > On Jun 25, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > On
> > "Because this is similar to the case
> >   when a connection becomes idle, mechanisms that address idle TCP
> >   connections (e.g., [RFC7661]) could also be applied to TCB cache
> >   management, especially when TCP Fast Open is used [RFC7413]"
> >
> > Why do TFO-started idle connections benefit this particularly?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:40 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’m guessing the views of the authors is gratuitous, but to at least be
> explicit:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>> On Jun 12, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Scharf, Michael <
> Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I haven't seen any reply so far. Lack of _any_ feedback is not a
> particularly good sign.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, no feedback implies that the document is ready to move
> forward. However, even in that case explicit support for publication  would
> be _really_ useful. A simple "+1" could be enough...
> >>>
> >>> I'll extend the WGLC by one week until June 21 to give the community
> some additional time to comment.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:06 PM
> >>>> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> >>>> Cc: tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
> >>>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> The document "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (draft-ietf-tcpm-
> >>>> 2140bis) is out there for a quite some time already. Given that there
> has
> >>>> been a bit less activity on the list after the interim, let's use
> this opportunity
> >>>> to finish one of our milestones...
> >>>>
> >>>> This e-mail starts a WGLG for the document draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis.
> The
> >>>> WGLC will run until ***June 14***.
> >>>>
> >>>> The intended status is an informational RFC. The current version of
> the
> >>>> document can be found at:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-05
> >>>>
> >>>> Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments
> or
> >>>> suggestions. TCPM needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to
> >>>> move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very
> welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael, on behalf of the TCPM chairs
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tcpm mailing list
> >>> tcpm@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tcpm mailing list
> >> tcpm@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>