Re: [tcpm] 793bis ready to go?

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0B33A1F4C for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 May 2021 19:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GpW7BSjaXhQi for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 May 2021 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 269923A1A23 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 May 2021 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id p6so3628404qtk.13 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 May 2021 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:subject:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=mM8m/kTgTp8ktWfawtudJUswILyHplnUZbqxrlLBQQ0=; b=2QGvN+onwj879cye4eokS51lcfbZJmTxaj9qb3reqOKC3SdT3faRWv5PcbgKaKuvRd ZAI41tCHVgVZkORBMlXIv6XyrzM75zp5acNPXGlTMXFhmH885fUhjzlLQUuEk33BkdNr ZaykUzmescJQ+jgKf0hz+/i8JXjNHrdA2WJDVv5RVxMXIRQewLDimm6rcHyg8GGTDdhn mb2UXYjaNHzo0EZiUrSvXjnhEdB2bbhVQNdY148GSmN4Nz7j5fxRAeuMRwpT2nfA2fUz yvYtdzmTukGolGEw3dD32VubHoDR3Gp46qz7Jmrqrv94ze7Hal7goVpw20f9/bJTY7og 1SMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=mM8m/kTgTp8ktWfawtudJUswILyHplnUZbqxrlLBQQ0=; b=ZBp3VeZJCuK7XTwV6ydDAApn2WJr32ypJYannR133U/fZeGkRolGK7qxdRWcQv3FId 4KcMvtqlG85Ev1P3rxaWJAbkziO34vxtZUhShbPYluRCiRFFBprpg0LW0lSltNCb6PHA DcJNrvX8jqaC5wjvMPnm//Q/NPdVRDw0QUe7A1m/XK+zfk2RaYWcD/OGbMWgufpTIZYs LmQ9NaEZr4ZTgkugYxrYwhV2uBhLVd1JjjpkyvAoZ3PKoOCOr5woMJHbH/luHzniGKxk oSFsRlqePMhkapYDt+UDd2da+aCGfnd7AYUcYY9MZ4FVJTmVIg/V7GES3moeOT9fg7nZ 2evQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jE2kMEc9xQukO/X65NLzZSGWGQpspnGQv5k1AQc68jHPOq7jc 22ZAf2NUqFz6SDClx3u13R+UFLCX5wsi/11D
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8RwjGy9OKIRq0RRPydP27YfLQkgx5KzhILnhIo1nzytiizC7LWzXqCYtogfLOYcFJihe4BQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:6:: with SMTP id x6mr20119498qtw.1.1620095509481; Mon, 03 May 2021 19:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (cpe-174-102-117-3.columbus.res.rr.com. [174.102.117.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m4sm1584304qtg.21.2021.05.03.19.31.48 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 May 2021 19:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <cd600644350847ef8415d21588d1e912@hs-esslingen.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2102160206350.3820@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <44a623e5-5e40-94d9-d3b5-36246dafa1e0@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 22:31:47 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2102160206350.3820@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Ab_zLbr4w5svjHHQIfXdu3fI-wI>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis ready to go?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 02:31:53 -0000

Thank you, I made these clarifications in the latest revision.


On 2/16/2021 9:12 AM, Markku Kojo wrote:
> The CC test looks good. Just two minor things: one editorial and 
> another small addition to address exponential backoff more accurately 
> and correctly. See inline.
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, Michael Scharf wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20 has been submitted recently. According 
>> to Wes, all WGLC feedback should be reflected in this version. A link 
>> to a complete diff can be found below.
>>
>> During WGLC, there has been quite some discussion on the exact 
>> wording on congestion control. The suggested text in version -20 is 
>> copied below:
>>
>> 3.7.2.  TCP Congestion Control
>>
>>   RFC 2914 [7] explains the importance of congestion control for the
>>   Internet.
>>
>>   RFC 1122 required implementation of Van Jacobson's congestion control
>>   algorithms slow start with congestion avoidance together with
>
> Here
>
> "SS with CA together with ..."
>
> reads a bit odd to me. But not sure as a non-native speaker. Would it 
> possibly read better if changed to(?):
>
> "algorithms slow start and congestion avoidance together with
>  exponential back-off ..."
>
> OR:
>
>  "algorithms slow start, congestion avoidance, and exponential
>   back-off ..."
>
>>   exponential back-off for successive RTO values for the same segment.
>>   RFC 2581 provided IETF Standards Track description of slow start and
>>   congestion avoidance, along with fast retransmit and fast recovery.
>>   RFC 5681 is the current description of these algorithms and is the
>>   current Standards Track specification providing guidelines for TCP
>>   congestion control.  RFC 6298 describes exponential back-off of RTO
>>   values, including keeping the backed-off value until a subsequent
>>   segment with new data has been sent and acknowledged.
>
> It would be useful to make the last sentence unambiguous as per Karn's 
> original specification:
>
>  "segment with new data has been sent and acknowledged without
>   retransmission."
>
> Thanks,
>
> /Markku
>