RE: [tcpm] New I-D posted : draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-00

> > There's been some talk lately about reverse path congestion control. 
> > (This would be much harder with TCP than DCCP, but maybe someone can 
> > figure it out?)
> 
> By reverse path, you mean ACK congestion control? Data transfer can be
> bi-directional.

Funny enough, I stumbled over this SHOULD when thinking about ACK
congestion control, where it could be useful for the sender to be
able to count the number of ACKs that the receiver would normally
have to send during a loss period.

In any case, it's the concern of a new mechanism, yet to be specified,
how to do ACK congestion control, and not the concern of RFC 2581 -
using a SHOULD instead of a MUST for sending ACKs to out-of-order
segments doesn't implement or even help ACK congestion control,
but it actually seems to be a hindrance.

Cheers,
Michael

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm