Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-09.txt

Hi Michael,

I am not a native speaker either, but I agree with you that "timeout 
duration" or "timeout value" sounds more clear.

BR,
Anna

On 2015-10-23 19:38, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote:
> Sorry for speaking up late... Just to cross-check with others. Is the new wording in the abstract...
>
>     The modification, RTO Restart (RTOR), allows the
>     transport to restart its retransmission timer using a smaller delay,
>     so that the effective RTO becomes more aggressive in situations where
>     fast retransmit cannot be used.  This enables faster loss detection
>     and recovery for connections that are short-lived or application-
>     limited.
>
> ... indeed clear to everybody? To me (as a non-native speaker) this use of "delay" in the context of the RTO is a bit confusing.
>
> To me, a wording like replacing "delay" by "timeout duration", "timeout value", etc. would sound more familiar. I'd rather use "delay" as a measure between packet (re) transmissions, etc.
>
> For instance, to me the following wording would fit a bit better ...
>
>     The modification, RTO Restart (RTOR), allows the
>     transport to restart its retransmission timer using a smaller timeout duration,
>     so that the effective RTO becomes more aggressive in situations where
>     fast retransmit cannot be used.  This smaller delay before the retransmission enables faster loss detection
>     and recovery for connections that are short-lived or application-
>     limited.
>
> But I am not a native speaker. Any thoughts?
>
> (I guess the RFC editor could just review that.)
>
> Michael
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Per Hurtig
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:55 AM
>> To: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
>> Cc: bclaise@cisco.com; barryleiba@computer.org
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-09.txt
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the new draft on RTO restart address the following comments from the
>> IESG (thanks for the feedback):
>>
>> o  Clarified, in the abstract, that the modified restart causes a
>> smaller retransmission delay in total.
>>
>> o  Clarified, in the introduction, that the fast retransmit algorithm
>> may cause retransmissions upon
>>      receiving duplicate acknowledgments, not that it unconditionally
>> does so.
>>
>> o  Changed wording from "to proposed standard" to "to the standards
>> track".
>>
>> o  Changed algorithm description so that a TCP sender MUST track the
>> time elapsed since the
>>      transmission of the earliest outstanding segment. This was not
>> explicitly stated in previous
>>      versions of the draft.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Per
>>
>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 21:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
>> Working Group of the IETF.
>>>         Title           : TCP and SCTP RTO Restart
>>>         Authors         : Per Hurtig
>>>                           Anna Brunstrom
>>>                           Andreas Petlund
>>>                           Michael Welzl
>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-09.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 17
>>> 	Date            : 2015-10-20
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    This document describes a modified sender-side algorithm for
>> managing
>>>    the TCP and SCTP retransmission timers that provides faster loss
>>>    recovery when there is a small amount of outstanding data for a
>>>    connection.  The modification, RTO Restart (RTOR), allows the
>>>    transport to restart its retransmission timer using a smaller
>> delay,
>>>    so that the effective RTO becomes more aggressive in situations
>> where
>>>    fast retransmit cannot be used.  This enables faster loss detection
>>>    and recovery for connections that are short-lived or application-
>>>    limited.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart/
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-09
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-09
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm