[tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?

Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com> Thu, 14 June 2007 21:15 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hywf1-0004W3-19; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:15:19 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hywez-0004VL-71 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:15:17 -0400
Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.177]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hywcd-0002tZ-JV for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:12:52 -0400
Received: from mac.com (smtpin03-en2 [10.13.10.148]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout07/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l5ELCjLv029586; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.150.186.170] (laptop170.icsi.berkeley.edu [192.150.186.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin03/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l5ELCgTa017607; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <b1e79256f18fcb6f81ae417fde5ca646@mac.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:12:40 -0700
To: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Brightmail-scanned: yes
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc: Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>, Mark Handley <M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

This email is to ask the working group if RFC 2861 on Congestion
Window Validation (CWV) should be left at Experimental, or whether
it is time to start the process of moving it to Proposed Standard.

RFC 2861, from June 2000, "describes a simple modification to TCP's
congestion control algorithms to decay the congestion window cwnd
after the transition from a sufficiently-long application-limited
period, while using the slow-start threshold ssthresh to save
information about the previous value of the congestion window.

RFC 2861 also recommends that "the TCP sender should not increase
the congestion window when the TCP sender has been application-limited
(and therefore has not fully used the current congestion window)".

My understanding is that CWV has been included in Linux since
Linux 2.4, but that it is not included in Microsoft.

Are there any experience reports about CWV (positive or negative),
or experience reports of problems (or the absence of problems) for
TCP connections without CWV?  Or are there other opinions about
whether it is time to start the process of moving RFC 2861 to
Proposed Standard?  Any feedback would be welcome.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/

In the spirit of doing due diligence with old Experimental RFCs...


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm