Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (2269)

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> Tue, 18 May 2010 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5D43A6A50 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.419, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I++O0B3Gciax for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndmsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08B63A68B9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.103]) by ndmsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1591108425; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:02:40 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ndjshub02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjshub02-pub.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.161]) by ndjsppt04.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4IH2eRu014740; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:02:40 -0500
Received: from NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.4.166]) by ndjshub02.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.1.161]) with mapi; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:02:40 -0500
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "ietfdbh@comcast.net" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, "lars.eggert@nokia.com" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:02:39 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (2269)
Thread-Index: Acr2py7Pe6TOLK8nTz2FQLeyA6BtUAAA+mRA
Message-ID: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47E633C72B@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
References: <20100518162738.29C0AE065C@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100518162738.29C0AE065C@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-05-18_02:2010-02-06, 2010-05-18, 2010-05-18 signatures=0
Cc: "nmalykh@protocols.ru" <nmalykh@protocols.ru>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (2269)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 May 2010 17:03:01 -0000

I think this errata should be rejected, as 3042 behavior
is referenced as a SHOULD on page 9, when implementing
fast retransmit + fast recovery, and this material is
new for 5681 (it was not part of 2581), but I think we
need to discuss this on the TCPM list and let our ADs
know how to handle it.

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems


>-----Original Message-----
>From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:28 PM
>To: mallman@icir.org; vern@icir.org; eblanton@cs.purdue.edu;
>ietfdbh@comcast.netnet; lars.eggert@nokia.com; weddy@grc.nasa.gov;
>david.borman@windriver.com
>Cc: nmalykh@protocols.ru; tcpm@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (2269)
>
>
>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5681,
>"TCP Congestion Control".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5681&eid=2269
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Technical
>Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@protocols.ru>
>
>Section: 7
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>   The description of fast retransmit and fast recovery has been
>   clarified, and the use of Limited Transmit [RFC3042] is now
>   recommended.
>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>   The description of fast retransmit and fast recovery has been
>   clarified.
>
>
>Notes
>-----
>Really using of Limited Transmit [RFC3042] is not recommended anywhere
>in RFC 5681.
>
>Instructions:
>-------------
>This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
>--------------------------------------
>RFC5681 (draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-07)
>--------------------------------------
>Title               : TCP Congestion Control
>Publication Date    : September 2009
>Author(s)           : M. Allman, V. Paxson, E. Blanton
>Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
>Source              : TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
>Area                : Transport
>Stream              : IETF
>Verifying Party     : IESG