Re: [tcpm] AW: RFC2581bis ooo acking WAS: New I-D posted :draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-00

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > > Yes, if it does not break the protocol.  The receiver may have other 
> > > concerns than absolute rapidity of throughput; for example, power 
> > > savings, bandwidth conservation, local processing time, etc. etc.
> > > This, in my mind, simply falls into the realm of dictating 
> > > implementation details.  The point is that a receiver delaying that 
> > > out-of-order ACK will still perform correctly with respect to protocol
> > > semantics, it may just take a little bit longer.
> 
> - The question I would ask is: "Is fast retransmission considered a
> MUST? Yes, according to RFC 2581. If so I would think the surrounding
> mechanisms, esp the ones which has direct influence, which facilitate
> the fast-retransmision, can also be considered for a MUST candidate,
> like in this case the generation of Duplicate ACK's. 

I agree; however, the duplicate ACK *will* be generated; it just may
be delayed by as much as 500ms.  (Note that 1122 says that the "delay
MUST be less than 0.5 seconds".)  As several people, including myself,
have said in this thread, it is not at all an issue of *correctness*.
If we were talking about correctness, I would completely agree that
the correct solution is the only option.

Ethan

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764

Re: [tcpm] AW: RFC2581bis ooo acking WAS: New I-D posted :draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-00

Attachment: signature.asc