Re: [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

One minor nit on the new text, the term "controlled environment" is used 
elsewhere in the RFC series in transport-related documents to describe 
what you name "constrained environment".

Gorry

On 19/06/2020 16:02, Mark Allman wrote:
> I just posted a new version of rto-consider (-16).  The document,
> diffs, etc. can be found here:
>
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider/
>
> I fixed a few nits that had been pointed out throughout the
> document.
>
> The main work in this rev is in the first two paragraphs of the
> intro.  I honed these based on the discussion with Stewart and
> Gorry.  Well, "honed" might ultimately look like "rewrote" even if
> that wasn't the process or exactly my intention. :) I tried to pull
> some of the notions from later in the document up here to the front
> of the document, as requested.  In particular, I brought forward the
> notion of this document as a default and not as a one-size-fits-all.
> I hope this addresses the concerns to a large extent.
>
> I also want to make a meta point here, which is clearly about this
> document, but also I think much more widely applicable.  I continue
> to believe that the Internet has grown to what it is in no small
> part because at many crucial points we chose generality over
> optimality.  I do not believe we should shun generality---either in
> terms of protocol development or the lessons we have learned.  That
> doesn't mean we cannot acknowledge places where more pointed
> solutions may be appropriate.  It doesn't mean we can't accommodate
> different and non-general approaches in things like guidelines and
> requirements.  But, I think it'd be a pity if we couldn't write
> general documents because there are cases where they will be
> suboptimal or not applicable.  There are always such cases.  And, if
> that is the gate, we're going to design a network we won't much care
> for, I think.  IMHO.  FWIW.
>
> allman