Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-blanton-tcpm-3517bis-01

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

> AFAIK you and Ilpo pointed out in your draft that in a case of a
> segment-based stack the dupthresh counter is not necessary anymore and
> we can handle everything with IsLost(). So, I recommend that this
> should be included in 3517bis (as a big side note or in an appendix
> section)

We do note in the document ...

   Finally, note that the algorithm in this document assumes a
   sender that is not keeping track of segment boundaries after
   transmitting a segment.  It is possible that a sender that did
   keep this extra state may be able to use a more refined and
   precise algorithm than the one presented herein, however, we
   leave this as future work.

... which seems reasonable to me.  The document **does not** seek to
offer both byte- and packet-based variants.  It is perfectly fine for a
stack to use a packet-based variant and this document could still form
the basis of such a beast.  But, such an implementation could likely
hone a number of things that are approximations in the current document,
or get by without particular counters or whatnot.  Tracking packets may
in fact be a good tradeoff in some cases.  But, it just isn't what this
document strives to specify.  Some other document can puzzle through a
packet-based variant if folks want such a specification.

allman