Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14.txt> (Requirements for Time-Based Loss Detection) to Best Current Practice
Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Thu, 28 May 2020 17:10 UTC
Return-Path: <mallman@icsi.berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015623A0484 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVafli4zzjQp for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com (mail-ot1-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA0A23A03F3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id h7so2949783otr.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=qwmXUTOzh3fhL3bOKWYU+4ss1wgLTWzK3taZ1EQytDM=; b=iIqdQipVJDFThgn28AuTQKiZt16SdEY/yqXBCwylg9Nten1g5q96IIy0GJjdFybFZh OTV7kbYswsVHrpTcneF78wxgdl+IzDFxpB/IA+2THqEj2Cne+Jh2gb1kzAYfQ/Rdtrr/ b7sIa2+T9q4lS4UgoJcCUI4fiAdelAB75XY8gIKkvvUbkpgBGDBpJjdfYSfae8SYBXQl B2aARrrEGtn+ov8LKTdSrM40ciJrxwY0FZwAMZollJyC47CTj71T/mLH9KxuhNPKAZN6 Q0m/MNzUKFcLVFC8WQ4qhHyqwuiXvMMuyDVA5tE4yzZavCNb4mfBuT0C7hSJC5PI9cSe gs0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532TNiBJ/f19IiLIdoReq6Ybhe2EDwe+jzeeVL7TTutnhZlw8yEN yTjLPCDRyyF92dVvhFZW2OIMGkA2BKk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwo1gFvfXf3OeWn2IX/VVVTSAANSg505I9PmP1jPNy3nWU0szWXo+te5Ij6GQIjSM3nSEEY1w==
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a0a:: with SMTP id g10mr3054182otn.105.1590685849071; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.244] ([2600:1700:b380:3f00:3c1d:c19b:e6c9:7c4e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d123sm1990454oib.6.2020.05.28.10.10.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:10:47 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <6759B038-D034-4B0B-930B-EE568C4E35AC@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <5ECFE791.3050400@btconnect.com>
References: <158981133458.2481.15195759097492819350@ietfa.amsl.com> <DB7PR07MB53406A74483D8123C75ADD70A28E0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5ECFE791.3050400@btconnect.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_B8E667F7-D0CA-428D-8F13-8AB8A8E5FAF7_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/dBPOLDlVdnfqC2DvOaZSmiBftGk>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14.txt> (Requirements for Time-Based Loss Detection) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 28 May 2020 17:10:55 -0000
I just want to quickly correct one thing here ... [the draft] then recommends a minimum RTO of one second (a) It DOES NOT say this at all. The document does not specify ANY minimum RTO. The document does says this: In the absence of any knowledge about the latency of a path, the initial RTO MUST be conservatively set to no less than 1 second. But, as soon as there is some notion (e.g., a RTT measurement) then there is knowledge and this no longer applies. I.e., this is for the startup case where we are beginning transmission into an unknown network path. (b) If this is too hefty for some application, that's fine. Do what we do now and get consensus to use something different. Again, the document says: The correct way to view this document is as the default case. [...] The requirements in this document may not be appropriate in all cases and, therefore, inconsistent deviations may be necessary (hence the "SHOULD" in the last bullet). However, inconsistencies MUST be (a) explained and (b) gather consensus. In other words, the worst case is the current case. I am not entirely sure I understand the remaining points in the review as it's pretty rambling to me. Certainly we use heartbeats (in things like SCTP) and control packets (think TCP zero window probes or keep-alives). The document is very simply saying that if these are used in some fashion we can also use them to measure FT information. That seems pretty reasonable to me and I can't figure out what your complaint about that is. Perhaps you could try again so my pea brain can understand the complaint? Thanks! allman
- [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-1… The IESG
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consid… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Martin Duke
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… tom petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… t petch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcp… Wesley Eddy