Skip to main content

Adding Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP
draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2009-07-04
06 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-06.txt
2009-06-30
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-24
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-06-24
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-06-24
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-06-24
06 Lars Eggert State Changes to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Lars Eggert
2009-06-18
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Sorry, raised the Comment against the wrong document
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
Sorry, raised the Discuss against the wrong document
2009-06-18
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-18
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
You have some non-2119 language that may need attention. For example, in Section 2.2
  PT is the payload type expected in the …
[Ballot comment]
You have some non-2119 language that may need attention. For example, in Section 2.2
  PT is the payload type expected in the RTP header.  A value of zero
  indicates that the receiver shall not check payload type to detect
  malformed packets.
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
In section 2.1
  1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure-
    agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]):
    …
[Ballot discuss]
In section 2.1
  1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure-
    agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]):
    a) Structure-agnostic E1 emulation  - 32
    b) Structure-agnostic T1 emulation:
        i) MUST be set to 24 for the basic mode 
        ii) MUST be set to 25 for the "Octet-aligned T1"
            mode
    c) Structure-agnostic E3 emulation  - 535
    d) Structure-agnostic T3 emulation  - 699

I cannot pare this. Does the "MUST" apply to future specifications? I.e., is it an instruction to IANA? Or are you trying to say...

  For structure-agnostic emulation, this parameter MUST
  be set to one of the following values.
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Previous Comment entered in error
2009-06-18
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I don't think the use of the RFC 2119 boilerplate is appropriate.
AFAICS, the only use of such language is in instructions to …
[Ballot comment]
I don't think the use of the RFC 2119 boilerplate is appropriate.
AFAICS, the only use of such language is in instructions to the RFC Editor and the IANA. These instructions will be removed before publication and so the boilerplate is redundant and should be removed.
2009-06-17
06 Cullen Jennings
[Ballot discuss]
I can live with the IESG note as is, but after reading this draft, I think it might be more appropriate to change …
[Ballot discuss]
I can live with the IESG note as is, but after reading this draft, I think it might be more appropriate to change the IESG note to something along lines of:

      The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF,
      and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a
      published IETF work.  This RFC is not a candidate for any level of
      Internet Standard.  See RFC 3932 for more information.
2009-06-17
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-17
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-17
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-06-17
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-06-17
06 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-06-16
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-06-16
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-06-15
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Telechat date was changed to 2009-06-18 from 2009-07-02 by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Telechat date was changed to 2009-07-02 from 2009-06-18 by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-07-02 by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2009-06-04
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-06-04
06 (System) Last call text was added
2009-06-04
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2009-06-04
06 Lars Eggert Note field has been cleared by Lars Eggert
2009-05-15
06 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-05-21 by Amy Vezza
2009-05-15
06 Amy Vezza Responsible AD has been changed to Lars Eggert from Russ Housley
2009-05-15
06 Amy Vezza State Change Notice email list have been change to floyd@icir.org, draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc@tools.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org from floyd@icir.org, draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc@tools.ietf.org
2009-05-15
06 Cindy Morgan
This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an
Informational Independent Submission: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt.

Please let us know if this document conflicts …
This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an
Informational Independent Submission: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt.

Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards
process or other work being done in the IETF community.


Adding Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP

This document describes a possible congestion control mechanism for
acknowledgement traffic (ACKs) in TCP. The document specifies an
end-to-end acknowledgement congestion control mechanism for TCP
that uses participation from both TCP hosts, the TCP data sender
and the TCP data receiver. The TCP data sender detects lost or
ECN-marked

ACK packets, and tells the TCP data receiver the ACK Ratio R to use
to respond to the congestion on the reverse path from the data
receiver to the data sender. The TCP data receiver sends roughly
one ACK packet for every R data packets received. This mechanism
is based on the acknowledgement congestion control in DCCP's CCID
2. This acknowledgement congestion control mechanism is being
specified for further evaluation by the network community.


Four week timeout expires on 11 June 2009.
2009-05-15
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-01-23
05 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt
2008-07-14
04 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-04.txt
2008-02-25
03 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-03.txt
2007-11-19
02 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-02.txt
2007-06-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-01.txt
2007-04-16
00 (System) New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-00.txt