Re: [tcpm] More motivating scenarios for tcpm-ack-pull

[Carles Gomez Montenegro <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

Thanks, once again, for your kind suggestions!

We agreed with your proposal below, and we published the initial version
of a new I-D [1] that has the aim that you described below (i.e.
requirements analysis plus discussion of suggested solutions).

We hope the document can be useful to analyze the problem space in a more
comprehensive approach.

Should you have further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know!

Cheers,

Carles

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gomez-tcpm-delack-suppr-reqs-00


> Carles,
>
> It strikes me that there is a lot of interest in doing something like
> ACK-pull, but also a lot of disagreement in where to draw the line
> between what to do and what not to do.
>
> Can I suggest that a way to resolve this would be to start with an
> informational requirements draft, that I am sure would be adopted as WG
> business immediately given the interest. Whereas any particular choice
> of mechanism at this stage would probably not get the necessary
> consensus to be adopted.
>
> The requirements draft could discuss solutions, not as a "on this we all
> agree" protocol, but in terms of their pros and cons, e.g. which
> mechanisms could satisfy which requirements, so they can be judged
> relative to each mechanism's complexity / traversibility / usage of bits
> / etc.
>
> I will warn you that a requirements draft could itself add years to the
> process (the accurate ECN requirements did [RFC7560]). But not if we
> agree to allow a solution draft to start in parallel once the
> requirements are starting to converge, rather than waiting for the
> requirements to go thru the full RFC process.
>
>
> You might prefer to continue evangelising ack-pull as a sufficient
> solution, so I don't want to say a requirements draft is the only way
> forward. But you saw my comment earlier - that once you've been through
> all the years of effort of getting anything changed in TCP, you
> sometimes feel that you wish you'd been more ambitious than just one bit
> at the start.
>
>
> Bob