IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Thu, 14 May 2009 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068CA3A6F4F for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 07:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bow5TxLYZA+B for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 07:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (sequoia.muada.com [83.149.65.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F190F3A6F43 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2009 07:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [163.117.139.52] ([163.117.139.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4EE4VNt071934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 May 2009 16:04:46 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <AE0E795F-86B2-47BD-A41B-715D587098E3@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2214AF2743@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:04:38 +0200
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221318FBB5@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2214AF2743@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: "k.avrachenkov@sophia.inria.fr" <k.avrachenkov@sophia.inria.fr>, Blanton <jblanton@cs.ohiou.edu>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Josh@core3.amsl.com, "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:05:25 -0000

On 13 mei 2009, at 20:36, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:

> TCP Maintainers & Minor Extenders: The WGLC came and went on the
> Early Retransmit draft without a single comment.  If it really is
> perfect, then someone should speak up and say so :).

I think the non-SACK stuff should be removed and that the use of SACK  
should be made mandatory.

First of all, this doesn't matter in practice because everybody (for a  
large value of "everybody") supports SACK today anyway.

Second, allowing people to pick and choose arbitrarily is a bad  
precedent and undermines our work.

I would like to see the fast retransmit threshold be dependent on the  
actually observed reordering, but I don't think that would work in the  
common use case addressed here, were the whole session is over after a  
handful of segments.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email