Hi Stewart, et.al.! I just submitted a new version of rto-consider. Please ask the datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14. The highlights: - The diffs with the last rev are here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-15.txt - All small comments addressed. - I think we all agree that this is not a one-size-fits-all situation. Rather, this document is meant to be a default case. So, the main action of this rev is to make that point more clearly. The first paragraph in the intro is new. Also, there are some more words fleshing out the context more in section 2. In particular, more emphatically making the point that other loss detectors are fine for specific cases. - The first paragraph in the intro also makes clear we adopt the loss == congestion model (as that is the conservative default, not because it is always true). - I made one other change that wasn't exactly called for, but seems like an oversight. Previously guideline (4) said loss MUST be taken as an indication of congestion and some standard response taken. But, this guideline has an explicit exception for cases where we know the loss was caused by some non-congestion event. Guideline (3) says you MUST backoff. But, it did not have this exception for cases where we can tell the cause. But, I think based on the spirit of (4), (3) should also have these words. So, I added them. Also, I swapped (3) and (4) because it seemed more natural in re-reading to first think about taking congestion action and then dealing with backoff. I think the ordering is a small thing, but folks can yell and I'll put it back if there is angst. Please take a look and let me know if this helps things along or not. allman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
