Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-04

Yoshifumi Nishida <> Mon, 02 May 2022 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39A8C159480 for <>; Sun, 1 May 2022 23:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AWgb8fm5-6Fp for <>; Sun, 1 May 2022 23:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB710C157B5C for <>; Sun, 1 May 2022 23:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a15-20020a17090ad80f00b001dc2e23ad84so3330545pjv.4 for <>; Sun, 01 May 2022 23:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/x/zmnWEA7TEAl6y6UuLm9AC/qTl9wMFGoM7n3vA89Q=; b=R0U8XhtrSEZzaixltY90nqSdojR07iJo6KgNs4NItu4uQSFl3/E1Q2ggUeXyMRHMQe pG7LVl8KrkC+RCVigamlzExYLbrFSIHFIy3x2CgStMSwFxgsKu0D+w4T/46UFBVLwkmw Pnqg5Y9q49gtpJ/hN0fN8i3FcD43uL4LMAX777LT40oYOjk3FPfFXH1NgSour2DHIvLD bTLWEKkooWSqRcnW7LY6/xuaJtIAG3iFxUZUBcUkIjmqZSi67bKKO7PVDdAhTXJgBE74 LBaklEdgMzRWMoSNvoZCOrqfCsLIAGc9q7qUdGO6Fgw2smU1lHY7pywghubckTfSx2tS AUuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/x/zmnWEA7TEAl6y6UuLm9AC/qTl9wMFGoM7n3vA89Q=; b=ej+W3kxucEFA+/8vXI2kAmmLcsIwbBZ4mkQQxy8P0zctQTw4KR/5pe1bY81jEXrlc9 Px7SQKs3epR8ynswJaQC7cc5/szdxgvnNqeFUTOgVEdcewEt8erGI6+8xb6ie4QnkfHk SBS1eHSx63y7Y+M/7twVis1N0er78fNcJ6ZeSKrmQh3Fy6EO3/Z/UhmJktsoEapSkXi/ Jw4B4qe1E5pngBiUaYtdRhHfTWiEzSV9M+t29InjPCLsB8NZN4scw3rLH2XNcollZj16 69/k/jR1fM0IVliGYyD7fZYwtgE6KlweL+abu93Qac+E/2EsKadrBmc+ksgtTL+8xM7i FjtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KJEUG9JxYNei33b9SgWKDoLZMMBnXBdCB/Zl1xz4CB6gLxQjZ RNPkTPekQ1UvOdMXmWyH9x9Mu9nLoDs5622f8MUxcta85Ds=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJws67lJtMpHm9dsrgLpwrJpq89u3RXB3BDO4Q/1CZCykr5/Ncen/KvSVgm6hjAPTcUWC3DbgVuKIUDiEtozWAE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bf0a:b0:15c:df1b:f37d with SMTP id bi10-20020a170902bf0a00b0015cdf1bf37dmr10404399plb.90.1651471531412; Sun, 01 May 2022 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 23:05:19 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: tcpm IETF list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fc931405de012d4b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 06:05:36 -0000

As an individual participant,  I think the draft is mostly ready, but I
have the following comments.

1: Section 4.2:
    according to the pseudo code, rttSampleCount can exceed N_RTT_SAMPLE.
    So, I personally prefer to update the following sentences to mention
this point more explicitly like:
   "For rounds where N_RTT_SAMPLE RTT samples have been obtained and
currentRoundMinRTT and lastRoundMinRTT are valid"
   "For rounds where at least N_RTT_SAMPLE RTT samples have been

   "For CSS rounds where N_RTT_SAMPLE RTT samples have been obtained.."
   "For CSS rounds where at least N_RTT_SAMPLE RTT samples have been

2: Section 5:
    "Hystart++ reduces byte retransmitted by 50% and retransmission
timeouts by 36%."
    "In an A/B test for Hystart++ draft.."

     It's not very clear what was compared with hystart++ here. Is it
conventional slow-start or hystart?
     If it's hystart, it seems to me that reducing retransmission and
retransmission timeout is a bit counter-intuitive as hystart++ can gain
higher throughput than hystart in my understanding.
     If it's conventional slow-start, the presentation of the results is a
bit weak as the motivation of hystart++ is to improve hystart.


On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 1:19 PM Michael Tuexen <>

> Dear all,
> this e-mail starts the working group last call for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-04.
> The WGLC runs until Friday, May 6th 2022.
> Please send any comments, including indications to support this document,
> to the TCMP mailing list by then.
> The ID is available at
> Best regards
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list