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

Hi Yoshifumi,

Thanks for the review!

  1.  We will update the text as you suggested.
  2.  We were comparing Hystart++ with conventional slow-start. We have never implemented the original version of Hystart and I agree the data we have right now is a bit weak. We will consider adding some lab results to show that Hystart++ with CSS works better than Hystart++ without CSS in networks with latency jitters.

Yi

________________________________
From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 11:05 PM
To: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-04

Hello,
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 obtained..."

   "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 obtained.."

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.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 1:19 PM Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de<mailto:tuexen@fh-muenster.de>> wrote:
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
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-04.html<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-04.html&data=05%7C01%7Chuanyi%40microsoft.com%7C15a4c3c1fb334b3fcfe308da2c01cb93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637870683603858503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rJ%2B0mN6IulVDmdcQbgZ6hov3hWI7bRwhZhOj6CrrHFA%3D&reserved=0>

Best regards
Michael

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&data=05%7C01%7Chuanyi%40microsoft.com%7C15a4c3c1fb334b3fcfe308da2c01cb93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637870683603858503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=C1VbtrGBlPIx5qEnry%2F4tO6KSsccfU8KTW7AwQazEcY%3D&reserved=0>