Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

Fernando Gont wrote:

> Gorry,
> 
> Thanks so much for your comments. You'll find my responses inline....
> 
> 
>> It seems you have responded to most (if not all) my substantial 
>> comments,  and also tightened the
>> language, I like these improvements, and to me, this seems much safer 
>> in this respect.
>>
>> I would like to check one point:
>> Section 3.1:
>>
>> /Very short user timeout values can affect TCP transmissions over
>> high-delay paths.  If the user timeout occurs before an
>> acknowledgment for an outstanding segment arrives, possibly due to ..../
>>
>> - This rev of the draft also includes a change to mandate the  minimum 
>> value to be at least the RTO value, which should at least help in this 
>> case?
> 
> 
> Agreed. However, the document argues to enforce a minimum *L_LIMIT* 
> value of at least one RTO, with L_LIMIT being a parameter of the 
> RECOMMENDED (ie, not mandatory) scheme for selecting the user timeout.
> 
> So two possible ways to fix this would be:
> 
> a) State that the minimum allowed value for the user timeout is one RTO 
> (in any case.... not just in the recommended scheme)
> b) Make the recommended scheme mandatory.
> 
> I would personally argue in favour of (a). But well, opinions are welcome.
>
<snip>
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 

It is only necessary to mandate an algorithm, if things break without 
it. This doesn't seem to be what you are saying, so I'd suggest (a) too.

I'd prefer to say that the used value MUST be larger than the measured 
RTO. So does that imply if RTO increases above the current user time out 
that something needs to happen, we need to get the correct language 
here. Any suggestions?

Gorry

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