Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-blanton-tcpm-3517bis-01

Alexander Zimmermann <alexander.zimmermann@comsys.rwth-aachen.de> Thu, 14 April 2011 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.zimmermann@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EBBE081D for <tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dIIJlYlQbVZo for <tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.73]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87072E080B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0LJM007XTMG5F5G0@mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:12:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,209,1301868000"; d="scan'208";a="106440876"
Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:12:06 +0200
Received: from [192.168.4.16] ([unknown] [77.109.115.140]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0LJM00KPGMG4QP30@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:12:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Alexander Zimmermann <alexander.zimmermann@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104132300590.27652@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:12:03 +0200
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <EA1EDCD4-7AEB-4B6A-A720-15E55CBF7133@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
References: <20110413195917.539A73970266@lawyers.icir.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104132300590.27652@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.3.3
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-blanton-tcpm-3517bis-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:13:21 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Am 13.04.2011 um 22:11 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Mark Allman wrote:
> 
>>> 2)
>>> If the incoming ACK is a duplicate acknowledgment and the TCP is
>>> 
>>>   not currently in loss recovery, the TCP MUST increase DupAcks by
>>>   one and take the following steps:
>>> 
>>>   (1) If DupAcks >= DupThresh, go to step (4).
>>> 
>>>   (2) If DupAcks < DupThresh but IsLost (SND.UNA) returns
>>>       true---indicating at least three segments have arrived above
>>>       the current cumulative acknowledgment point, which is taken
>>>       to indicate loss---go to step (4).
>>> 
>>> can we combine (1) and (2)? go to steps (4) if IsLost(SND.UNA) is
>>> true. I guess it depends on your answer of my first question.
>> 
>> My first hit here is that this could indeed be tightened up by just
>> getting rid of DupAcks and consulting IsLost (SND.UNA).  If that returns
>> true we enter loss recovery, if not we don't.  Do I understand that to
>> be what you're saying?
> 
> ...I see, now we're back in discussing what this DupAcks counter is 
> for, right? It was added in sack-recovery-entry ID and had proper 
> explation of its purpose there in place. The DupAcks counter is to handle 
> case where the sender is sending smaller than SMSS sized segments. 
> ...Perhaps it would be useful to explain it like the sack-recovery-entry 
> did because otherwise this will just keep confusing people?

Yes, please. I really recommend to add section 3.1 of 
draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry-01.txt to the draft.

Alex

//
// Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Zimmermann
// Department of Computer Science, Informatik 4
// RWTH Aachen University
// Ahornstr. 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany
// phone: (49-241) 80-21422, fax: (49-241) 80-22222
// email: zimmermann@cs.rwth-aachen.de
// web: http://www.umic-mesh.net
//

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAk2mgiMACgkQdyiq39b9uS4qBgCeIneNaYUM/nz8df4hJgcp9ZQ+
FFkAoNI7qWbugaH1iX3fRWtE2Th+X24O
=mwhX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----