Subject: [tcpm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:53:05 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Tim's OPS DIR review:

This document describes an experimental modification to the TCP
Retransmission Timeout (RTO) to act more aggressivly in connections that
are short-lived or application limited.  It's well written.

The document is for both TCP and SCTCP, though primarily the TCP
implementation is discussed. This is fine as it is experimental.

I found one thing in the introduction:

   This document describes a modified sender-side algorithm for managing
   the TCP and SCTP retransmission timers that provides faster loss
   recovery

I believe that it should be "provide" singular and not plural.

In section 4, there is this text:

   The RECOMMENDED value of rrthresh is four, as this value will ensure
   that RTOR is only used when fast retransmit cannot be triggered.
   This update needs TCP implementations to track the time elapsed since
   the transmission of the earliest outstanding segment (T_earliest).

The text is saying the implementation track time elapsed, so should it
say:

"With this update, TCP implementations MUST track the time elapsed..."?