Subject: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:14:40 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions of the IETF.

        Title           : Retransmission Timeout Considerations
        Author          : Mark Allman
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2016-04-15

Abstract:
    Each implementation of a retransmission timeout mechanism represents
    a balance between correctness and timeliness and therefore no
    implementation suits all situations.  This document provides
    high-level requirements for retransmission timeout schemes
    appropriate for general use in the Internet.  Within the
    requirements, implementations have latitude to define particulars
    that best address each situation.

Terminology

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:21:58 -0400

> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.  This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and
> Minor Extensions of the IETF.
> 

Folks-

This new version has two basic sets of changes:

(1) I did a light editing pass over the whole document.  Nothing big
    was changed here, but a bunch of small stuff was cleaned up.

(2) I have been chatting with Michael.  While we do not agree on
    some things, it is clear that the document's position in the
    world was not well described.  I added a new section after the
    intro to address this.  To my mind this is not a changing of the
    document's positioning at all.  And, this should be completely
    non-controversial and is how people seem to have been reading it
    and commenting to me.  It is a page of new text and it probably
    needs some editorial work (at least).  So, if folks could take a
    look at this, I'd much appreciate it.

Thanks,
allman