[tcpm] rto-consider: retransmission vs vs loss detection

"Mark Allman" <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 22 November 2019 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 2F66A120856 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:55:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 qvPSSvgyvaLh for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B7FA120089 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63A62C4077; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:55:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU
Received: from rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (maihub.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DDrOkSg+zqVK; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (envoy.ICIR.org [192.150.187.30]) by rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AC52C4068; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.244] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E486A1E8AE37; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:55:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
To: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:55:56 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <A4415474-0E56-4ADC-B2C2-F30AC4BFCB2C@icir.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/e2GWVi3uTiHr-Z9gwePzr2frw24>
Subject: [tcpm] rto-consider: retransmission vs vs loss detection
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:55:59 -0000

I-D>> Retransmissions triggered by the RTO mechanism MUST be taken
I-D>> as indications of network congestion and the sending rate
I-D>> adapted using a standard mechanism (e.g., TCP collapses the
I-D>> congestion window to one segment [RFC5681]).

Gorry> - Is this the retransmissions, or a time-out of the RTO?  (in
Gorry>   CC guidelines this described as a lack of response that
Gorry>   needs to be handled in this way).

Good catch.  I hacked the point to be in line with your suggestion.
I now have it as:

    (4) Loss detected by the RTO mechanism MUST be taken as an
        indication of network congestion and the sending rate adapted
        using a standard mechanism (e.g., TCP collapses the congestion
        window to one segment [RFC5681]).

Let me know if I need to do more work here.

allman