From nobody Wed Mar 23 04:43:15 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F6E3A0A3C for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:43:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZdrafMdb921I for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B1003A09D1 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id d7so1710887wrb.7 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=daXxbiYtFERkfaAxzQ5ZMiL2tUa2/IpvSqpzmFsf2VI=; b=L0UCZCLDHSgQpn16h+JKU2RZiaD7sAbn9OG03CIFrSzBSAXubWDQUy4rjWsnX3IEQ0 Dyyx90wwgUlfUsOH1B+6BRVm8SgBIHLvqDNuMMgqqqJnHYiz/CY9/K3ZrlMpR9CgPkNI 3R1DPse5HsjbZKzUusbMG2WKfikMGBJVcAzziz60eL/mNXWYsa4tUt230Ynj2an6MnD+ E2CxcZdoj+yLCUQe/0sPivpjfcd1EY9wrx13h3bmAMtNQsxmw0UPBWgg/hvjZ9YHpH2y dS8vHJ1JXBjFVMRR2Ix//pT93g3bNqe/FQFkxNaFg0nTWwh2sWm47BUlI2vfIG4kpuRa ru4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=daXxbiYtFERkfaAxzQ5ZMiL2tUa2/IpvSqpzmFsf2VI=; b=pxn0C9bs8oB0zT4dwDhi3dDjWZ3A50/6GYqGSckk28hed0HHn0/fs3w/VPeI2KSeWN L7fMPReNZy4p1Rx4lilq5umDOhwQi028T/XGwAxBWwyq03r6wdKIk/+nUMYt2wn1mU64 fHx5TEHEiuXhKaCNks9+3yuIqUYp4yRBD3qATvze7olBwsvp9wwgBKjGb6vCcgajSM83 Ifruwqd+h2snrXrUCGlj1qnvgDNGZQDJM629Yv+gs8Vhe8dh9KpssB8TGXZRcXEs9pVT 3kC7mWvS9P/ZQb1KB2GCY0ri1qZXAvqKouhmb9RXNHdokrwZWtAv0Lw7DNYoe1oK6Tk4 CD/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+GawUPi0B8A3idCdWZYuMSti8tqMEIxLvWm9kIxO5YR2TWoxt hknLmcikoTLxl3DNanFvU5pGjYL4KF2rNiRg0v/Hyy0d X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXIJglHrZ7eEgiXa4DK74vwqq8uKZjSJymN1vQaezgMJXDPCw5ztilfc1xpyjLNJDVxL/xZ2Zin8YWtHz4a0Q= X-Received: by 2002:adf:fb47:0:b0:1ed:9f2c:492e with SMTP id c7-20020adffb47000000b001ed9f2c492emr27391870wrs.196.1648035786536; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:43:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <39aeaa5e98cd99288d2f43ea6504d22f.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Yoshifumi Nishida Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 04:42:55 -0700 Message-ID: To: Carles Gomez Montenegro Cc: Jon Crowcroft , "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a2398305dae13b27" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gomez-tcpm-ack-rate-request-02.txt] X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:43:14 -0000 --000000000000a2398305dae13b27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I am not very sure, but I guess if we use TCP RACK and ignore reordering, it will mean we rely on only timer based retransmission scheme completely. There might be some situations where it works more efficiently than using dup acks. -- Yoshi On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 4:16 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro < carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote: > > thanks very much for this detailed review/feedback.... > > +100. > > We plan to update the draft very soon, aiming to address your comments, > Bob. > > > I wasn't sure about the ignore order thing either.... > > Same here... :) > > This feature was once suggested in a WG meeting, but it appears that > perhaps it is not so useful, so we might consider removing it in the next > draft update. > I plan to ask about this later today in the WG meeting. > > Cheers, > > Carles > > >> I would support this draft being adopted (as I've said numerous times > >> before). > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > --000000000000a2398305dae13b27 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not very sure, but I guess if we use TCP RACK an= d ignore reordering, it will mean we rely on=C2=A0only timer based retransm= ission scheme completely.=C2=A0
There might be some situations wh= ere it works more efficiently than using dup acks.=C2=A0
--
=
Yoshi

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 4:16 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote:<= br>
> thanks very= much for this detailed review/feedback....

+100.

We plan to update the draft very soon, aiming to address your comments, Bob= .

> I wasn't sure about the ignore order thing either....

Same here... :)

This feature was once suggested in a WG meeting, but it appears that
perhaps it is not so useful, so we might consider removing it in the next draft update.=C2=A0
I plan to ask about this later today in the WG meeting.

Cheers,

Carles

>> I would support this draft being adopted (as I've said numerou= s times
>> before).

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
--000000000000a2398305dae13b27--