Subject: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:57:52 -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 Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : TCP and SCTP RTO Restart
        Authors         : Per Hurtig
                          Anna Brunstrom
                          Andreas Petlund
                          Michael Welzl
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-06.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2015-04-08

Abstract:
   This document describes a modified algorithm for managing the TCP and
   SCTP retransmission timers that provides faster loss recovery when
   there is a small amount of outstanding data for a connection.  The
   modification, RTO Restart (RTOR), allows the transport to restart its
   retransmission timer more aggressively in situations where fast
   retransmit cannot be used.  This enables faster loss detection and
   recovery for connections that are short-lived or application-limited.

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

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-06

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: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:17:17 +0100

A few quick comments on this latest revision:

* I believe this is a sender-side only change, but the abstract doesn't 
explicitly say this, i.e. "This document specifies a sender-only 
modification to TCP and SCTP "

* The introduction does not explain why the WG has requested this to be 
experimental (is it the maturity or options of the algorithm; deployment 
experience; etc), e.g. "The specification in this draft is classified as 
"Experimental" pending experience with deployed implementations of the 
methods."

* Section 4 specifies the experimental algorithm, it may be useful to 
add a sentence at the start of this section that explicitly says this 
"This section specifies the modifications required", to contrast with 
the informative material in section 3,5,6.

* I have reviewed section 7, and this seems to me to address the 
SCTP-related comments received at the Dallas IETF meeting.

* To avoid doubt by security reviewers, You could possibly also note 
this in the security considerations section:  i.e. "This document 
specifies an experimental sender-only modification to TCP and SCTP."

Gorry

---

From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:12:59 +0000

> modification to TCP and SCTP "

Good point - this could help with reviews
 
> "Experimental" pending experience with deployed implementations of the

This is a valid concern, but I wonder if there is a more future-proof wording.

For similar TCPM documents we explicitly noted what further experimentation would be useful. In case of draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart, some of these experiments directly follow from some of the content in Section 5.

IMHO, the areas in which further experimentation is needed could be stated more explicitly, e.g., in the introduction with a reference to Section 5. This would also explain the status while being valid even if deployment experience increases in future.

Michael

---

From: Anna Brunstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:01:07 +0200

Thanks Gorry.
We have submitted a new version of the draft, addressing the comments.

BR,
Anna

On 2015-04-09 17:17, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> * I believe this is a sender-side only change, but the abstract 
> doesn't explicitly say this, i.e. "This document specifies a 
> sender-only modification to TCP and SCTP "
>
> * The introduction does not explain why the WG has requested this to 
> be experimental (is it the maturity or options of the algorithm; 
> deployment experience; etc), e.g. "The specification in this draft is 
> classified as "Experimental" pending experience with deployed 
> implementations of the methods."
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm