Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01

["Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <[e-mail]>]

Making SACK mandatory is far outside the scope of this draft
and the WGLC ... I think it should be in a separate thread if
we want to consider it, and not impact the near-term progress
of this draft, as this is a much larger (and harder) topic.

The authors can probably speak to the second point about
pegging the retransmit threshold to the observed reordering,
but I would guess that the challenge there lies in measuring
the observed reordering within resource limitations.

---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: [phone]
---------------------------

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:05 AM
>To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; Blanton
>Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01
>
>On 13 mei 2009, at 20:36, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:
>
>> TCP Maintainers & Minor Extenders: The WGLC came and went on the
>> Early Retransmit draft without a single comment.  If it really is
>> perfect, then someone should speak up and say so :).
>
>I think the non-SACK stuff should be removed and that the use of SACK
>should be made mandatory.
>
>First of all, this doesn't matter in practice because everybody (for a
>large value of "everybody") supports SACK today anyway.
>
>Second, allowing people to pick and choose arbitrarily is a bad
>precedent and undermines our work.
>
>I would like to see the fast retransmit threshold be dependent on the
>actually observed reordering, but I don't think that would work in the
>common use case addressed here, were the whole session is over after a
>handful of segments.