Re: [tcpm] New draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-lrd-00

> On 12. Mar 2021, at 18:33, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs.ietf@gmx.at> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> After some discussion, I got convinced to formally submit a draft,
> explicitly describing a simple lost retransmission detection mechanism
> to prevent RTO when a retransmission is lost.
> 
> While full featured stacks can address this issue within the RFC series
> already by using TCP RACK, on a more constrained platform where only
> SACK support is viable but not RACK, this mechanism may be an
> interesting alternative.
> 
> Thererfore cross-posting to CORE, in addition to TCPM. ICCRG is
> included, as it may be the case that current implementations which
> recover from lost retransmissions may not actually use this as a
> subsequent congestion control signal, and retain the ssthresh / cwnd
> from the initial loss recovery - and it is certainly debatable, if
> a single, or two engagements of a CC reaction is in order.
> 
> The mechansim described is very conservative (another CC reaction, and
> requires more data to be sent, to have high confidence when
> retransmitting a prior retransmission).
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-lrd-00
Hi Richard,

thanks a lot for the ID. Maybe the Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG
is also interested: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lwig

Best regards
Michael
> 
> (The graph in the appendix needs some overhaul, as PRR is becoming
> standard).
> 
> Best regards,
>   Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm