[tcpm] [draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-07] Interaction with other time-based recovery schemes?

Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Mon, 11 February 2019 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
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 71BC9131073; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:25:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 T_-4BiRuokNx; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.cnes.fr (mx1.cnes.fr [194.199.174.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B47513104A; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:24:56 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,253,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="5749711"
X-IPAS-Result: A2EnAAAO4PJb/wYBeApiHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUQcBAQsBgQ12Zk8hEjGMBpE9ji6FVBSBZiAUBAGEQAKDbiI0CQ0BAwEBAQEBAQICAmkcDIVxXgEFEBVWJgEEARqDGoEdZA+obRqEEwEDAgKFYgWCfosdgRFGhUMkAgOBKwESASGDM4ImAo54kHcHAoELhW+KRV6JEwOEGoJvjTmMIzknDTBxMxongzmCT4hMhT5CgVAIinaBHwGBHgEB
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: "'draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider@ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider@ietf.org>, "'tcpm@ietf.org'" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-07] Interaction with other time-based recovery schemes?
Thread-Index: AdTCJhVWLilqk5paQGaQX70xlfjc7w==
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:23:53 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:24:53 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1EB8B9CE@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4255-8.100.1062-24424.001
x-tm-as-result: No--31.912100-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1EB8B9CETWMBXP03cnesnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/kXZS8xUGSKKYgouFloxiaPBbYq8>
Subject: [tcpm] [draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-07] Interaction with other time-based recovery schemes?
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:09 -0000

Hi,

This email concerns the RTO consider draft (v07). Thanks for this interesting document.
I just have some concerns about the interactions between this document and other time-based retransmissions schemes that could be more aggressive than the RTO (e.g. RACK).

As an example of source of confusion, the description of the process (see below) should be clearer otherwise RACK falls into the scope of RTO.

This process
    of ensuring reliability via time-based loss detection and resending
    lost data is commonly referred to as a "retransmission timeout
    (RTO)" mechanism.

Moreover, there is not one only timer-based retransmission in Google-QUIC [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-tcpm-sessb-quic-loss-detection-congestion-control-01 ] (slide 17).
IMHO, a "Best Current Practice" should consider that, or add an element in the scope (S6) about other loss repair mechanisms that could be time-based.
Then a discussion in the requirements should precise how these time-based loss recovery mechanisms should/could interoperate.

Cheers,

Nico