Hi Stewart, If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stewart, > > do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your > concerns? > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman <mall...@icir.org> wrote: > >> >> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
