Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5681 (6233)

Ethan Blanton <> Mon, 20 July 2020 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892C93A0C43 for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 08:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SzTV-wC3KOze for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 08:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD0D3A0C41 for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 08:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B7E440263; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:21:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 91047400CA; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:21:09 -0400
From: Ethan Blanton <>
To: Mark Allman <>
Cc: RFC Errata System <>,,,,,,,,
Message-ID: <>
Mail-Followup-To: Mark Allman <>, RFC Errata System <>,,,,,,,,
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-GnuPG-Fingerprint: 2A9A 7752 8B91 6586 6289 FD3D 6CA9 2AC6 A1A8 AD0E
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:04:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5681 (6233)
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:21:13 -0000

Mark Allman wrote:
> This is incorrect and the errata should be rejected.

Agreed, for the reasons Mark mentioned.

> If I were to do anything here I think I'd strike "and congestion
> avoidance MUST be used to further increase cwnd" from the end of the
> sentence.  I.e., just let what naturally happens happen.  But, the
> current text is conservative.  And, it may well be that we actually
> meant to use CA in this case even if cwnd < ssthresh for some reason
> I am mis-remembering.  So, I'd want to page all that back in before
> agreeing with any errata.  I am not sure it's really that big of a
> problem to worry about.

I do not recall any reason that we must use CA instead of SS for the
case of cwnd < ssthresh, but I also know that these things are very
subtle and required a lot of discussion, so I am not too keen on
trying to amend this errata or propose a new errata to handle that
case.  I believe that the current document is correct in this point,
and that while it could possibly be clarified, a careful reading is
still adequate to understand the intent.