Re: [tcpm] rfc5961 and suggested updates.

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

my personal opinion:

I agree that documenting the problem and recommending the implementation of per-socket limits would be a useful thing to do.

I don’t think it is appropriated or needed to update or even deprecate RFC5961, therefore I would strongly support the changes to this draft as you described below.

Mirja



> Am 24.08.2018 um 15:39 schrieb Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I realized a few days ago that this draft:
> draft-lvelvindron-ack-throttling-02
> 
> was referenced here (slide 34):
> https://data.hackinn.com/ppt/2018%E7%9C%8B%E9%9B%AA%E5%BC%80%E5%8F%91%E8%80%85%E5%B3%B0%E4%BC%9A/TCP%E7%9A%84%E5%8E%84%E8%BF%90%EF%BC%8C%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE%E4%BE%A7%E4%BF%A1%E9%81%93%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E5%8F%8A%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8.pdf
> 
> There were some objections at the time regarding whether to update
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5961 or not:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg10433.html
> 
> Since the draft is referenced, I would consider doing some more work
> for an independent submission that clarifies rfc5961 or even an
> informational WG document. We can clarify section 7 and leave the
> deprecation out of the draft, as Joe disagreed on this part.
> 
> I would like to hear opinions.