IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] Comments draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-02

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Tue, 21 March 2017 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
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 6188B1297F7 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 05:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_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 2JBzuXZ49QYn for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 05:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AA561297F1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 05:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.121] (p57BB46B4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.187.70.180]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC092721E280C for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:16:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Message-Id: <A48E690E-D309-49D9-9680-4FC756AEF6BF@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:16:13 +0100
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/j7l6faYecDosUUeUe3JVOa-t0YU>
Subject: [tcpm] Comments draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:16:19 -0000

Dear all,

I just read the document and have two comments:

1. In section 2 the usage of ">>" is specified but ">>" is never used. I guess
   the paragraph can be removed.

2. It is stated two times:
   Additionally, TCB interdependence can be applied to any protocol
   with congestion state, including SCTP [RFC4960] and DCCP [RFC434],
   as well as for individual subflows in Multipath TCP [RFC6824].
   I think it should be made clear that information can also be
   shared between protocols. I also don't see why you can only do
   this between protocols having a congestion control. You might
   even want to share PMTU, MMS_S, MMS_R, RTT, RTTvar with protocols
   not providing a congestion control.

Best regards
Michael, as an individual

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email