> Mark, that is what I am questioning,
well ...
> that by default loss implies congestion. Historically true for
> the IETF but I think that there are a growing number of cases
> where it is not true as in a post I saw on another WG list this
> week where a document was saying that loss MUST NOT be taken as an
> indication of congestion so the MUST in this I-D I find too
> strong.
OK. So, I am not sure what to do here. I will say several things ...
(1) I believe that as a general, default the document is quite right
in specifying a congestion response and exponential backoff.
(2) I believe consensus of the WGs has been the same as my notion in
(1) for some time now. So, even setting aside (1), I am not
sure I feel like I have carte blanche to change this.
(3) I do not believe loss always means congestion and I do not
believe assuming such is always correct or should always be
done. I don't think I know anyone who thinks that. So, the
document explicitly says that is fine, just go get consensus
that some other approach is fine. (And, that should be
happening regardless of this document, so I am not sure what the
big deal is here.)
So, basically, I am not sure what to do here. Maybe one of the ADs
can help. Or, maybe we can set this aside and I can do the things I
told you I'd do and a little extra framing will make this better. I
am all ears for advice here.
(BTW, I have a half response to Stewart, as well. I am not ignoring
his review. I am just behind.)
allman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
