Re: [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Stewart,
>
> do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your
> concerns?
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Stewart, et.al.!
>>
>> I just submitted a new version of rto-consider.  Please ask the
>> datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14.  The highlights:
>>
>>   - The diffs with the last rev are here:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-15.txt
>>
>>   - All small comments addressed.
>>
>>   - I think we all agree that this is not a one-size-fits-all
>>     situation.  Rather, this document is meant to be a default case.
>>     So, the main action of this rev is to make that point more
>>     clearly.  The first paragraph in the intro is new.  Also, there
>>     are some more words fleshing out the context more in section 2.
>>     In particular, more emphatically making the point that other
>>     loss detectors are fine for specific cases.
>>
>>   - The first paragraph in the intro also makes clear we adopt the
>>     loss == congestion model (as that is the conservative default,
>>     not because it is always true).
>>
>>   - I made one other change that wasn't exactly called for, but
>>     seems like an oversight.
>>
>>     Previously guideline (4) said loss MUST be taken as an
>>     indication of congestion and some standard response taken.  But,
>>     this guideline has an explicit exception for cases where we know
>>     the loss was caused by some non-congestion event.  Guideline (3)
>>     says you MUST backoff.  But, it did not have this exception for
>>     cases where we can tell the cause.  But, I think based on the
>>     spirit of (4), (3) should also have these words.  So, I added
>>     them.
>>
>>     Also, I swapped (3) and (4) because it seemed more natural in
>>     re-reading to first think about taking congestion action and
>>     then dealing with backoff.  I think the ordering is a small
>>     thing, but folks can yell and I'll put it back if there is
>>     angst.
>>
>> Please take a look and let me know if this helps things along or
>> not.
>>
>> allman
>>
>