[tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 07 July 2020 14:43 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5153A0D5F; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, nsd.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.7.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <159413302994.31598.19077014220035835@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 07:43:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Jol6eruUBN1g_ZEUC9Yr3k76cJQ>
Subject: [tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 14:43:50 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** What’s “network safety” in the context of this document? How do I know I have it? IMO, precision is needed since there is normative language around assuring it; and it likely has a different connotation when used in the security operations setting. ** References supporting the following claims/observations would be helpful: -- Section 1. Per “… we leverage the conservative notion that loss is an implicit indication of congestion .. it has historically served us well.” -- Section 1. Per “At this point, our experience leads to a recognition that often specific tweaks that deviate from standardized time-based loss detectors do not materially impact network safety with respect to congestion control.” ** Section 3. S.1 and S.2. The text would benefit from a more precise definition of primary and last resort timers as these are scoping the document ** Section 6. I might mention that one of the applications of loss measurements in the network is in DoS detection.
- [tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker