Hi Tom!
Sorry for the long RTT .... I had a deadline earlier this week and
am still trying to dig out.
> It is the 'packets are lost due to congestion and that is THE
> problem' that I see as the unstated assumption for this and many
> IETF documents. Is it correct?
Well, yes, I agree with the first part of the sentence. However, I
disagree that is somehow an unstated assumption. The document says:
(4) Loss detected by the RTO mechanism MUST be taken as an
indication of network congestion and the sending rate adapted
using a standard mechanism (e.g., TCP collapses the congestion
window to one segment [RFC5681]).
That seems pretty explicit to me. And, yes, I fully understand loss
happens for non-congestion reasons. But, as a default---which this
document is---I think this guideline is on firm ground.
> A statement up front about the assumption of unreliability would
> address this.
I have added a note and will note in the intro that we take the
pessimistic (but realistic) assumption that the network is
unreliable and/or unknown. Clearly if that is not the case one
could land somewhere else.
Thanks!
allman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
