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

[Ethan Blanton <[e-mail]>]

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.

Ethan