A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP
draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-05-14
|
02 | Ben Campbell | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Ben Campbell. |
2012-05-11
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-05-11
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2012-05-11
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-05-10
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2012-05-10
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-05-10
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-05-10
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-05-09
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-04-25
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-04-12
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-04-12
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-04-12
|
02 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-04-12
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. One comment from Chris LILJENSTOLPE, part of the OPS-Directorate review. I wish the … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. One comment from Chris LILJENSTOLPE, part of the OPS-Directorate review. I wish the authors had selected some other state variable name other than DupAck for the multiple SACK counter. While it is well described in the draft, on first read it is really not a Duplicate ACK counter, but a multiple SACK counter (number of SACKs between covering ACKs). While useful, it would have been more intuitive to call it MultSack or some such. I do not propose editing the draft just for this purpose, but if another version of the draft is required, it may make the digestion of the material a little easier. I leave up to you to act on his feedback. Regards, Benoit. |
2012-04-12
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-04-12
|
02 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-04-11
|
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-04-11
|
02 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-04-10
|
02 | Pearl Liang | IESG: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any … IESG: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2012-04-10
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] "Pipe" definition says "The algorithm" is often referred to as the pipe alg. That's a little unclear, maybe better to say "The algorithm … [Ballot comment] "Pipe" definition says "The algorithm" is often referred to as the pipe alg. That's a little unclear, maybe better to say "The algorithm defined here...." and if that is the case, to also put that in the abstract and intro just to make it easier for someone who does call it that to find the RFC. |
2012-04-10
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-04-10
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] It would be helpful to those searching for information if the abstract noted that this document revised RFC 3517 |
2012-04-10
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-04-09
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot comment] Please run this document through the NIT checker before publication. |
2012-04-09
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-04-09
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-04-09
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 4-Apr-2012 suggests some improvements. Please consider them. The review can be found here: … [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 4-Apr-2012 suggests some improvements. Please consider them. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07319.html |
2012-04-09
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-04-06
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-04-06
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document.Just a couple of nits. --- Isn't [PF01] rather old to be cited as … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document.Just a couple of nits. --- Isn't [PF01] rather old to be cited as "evidence that hosts are not using the SACK information when making retransmission and congestion control decisions"? I guess this was good evidence when 3517 was first written, but maybe a different form of words is called for now? Perhapswe don't even need the evidence to motivte this work since it is now established. --- Section 1 A summary of the changes between this document and [RFC3517] can be found in Section 9. Pardon my pedantry, but the changes are between 3517 and this document. |
2012-04-06
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-04-03
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman |
2012-04-03
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman |
2012-04-03
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Section 7 talks about the effectiveness of this approach when paired with TCP Reno, but I do not see any discussion of possible … [Ballot comment] Section 7 talks about the effectiveness of this approach when paired with TCP Reno, but I do not see any discussion of possible interactions with other TCP congestion control algorithms. Has this re-transmission algorithm been tested with other congestion control algorithms? |
2012-04-03
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-04-02
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] This seems a good, clear document. Thanks for a thought-out Security Considerations section, as well. I have one question, as a non-expert on … [Ballot comment] This seems a good, clear document. Thanks for a thought-out Security Considerations section, as well. I have one question, as a non-expert on this topic: All four functions in section 4 are "SHOULD implement." Can a meaningful implementation really be done if NONE of them are included? If so, fine. If not, maybe a few more words in the first paragraph would be useful, explaining under what conditions it's important to include them or makes sense to leave them out. |
2012-04-02
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-04-02
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] An editorial: It it is relative short document, but recents RFCs seems all to have a table of contents, which is missing in … [Ballot comment] An editorial: It it is relative short document, but recents RFCs seems all to have a table of contents, which is missing in this draft. |
2012-04-02
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-03-30
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Ballot has been issued |
2012-03-30
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-03-30
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-30
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-03-29
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2012-03-29
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: - 'A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-04-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document presents a conservative loss recovery algorithm for TCP that is based on the use of the selective acknowledgment (SACK) TCP option. The algorithm presented in this document conforms to the spirit of the current congestion control specification (RFC 5681), but allows TCP senders to recover more effectively when multiple segments are lost from a single flight of data. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-04-12 |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Last call was requested |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-03-28
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-03-26
|
02 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-03-26
|
02 | Mark Allman | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02.txt |
2012-03-12
|
01 | Wesley Eddy | need to indicate updates/obsoletes |
2012-03-12
|
01 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. It is an update to an existing Proposed Standard RFC 3517. The intended status is NOT indicated on the title page of the current version of document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document specifies a loss recovery algorithm based on the use of TCP SACK option that conforms to the current TCP congestion control requirements. It is a revision of Proposed Standard RFC 3517, to provide clarifications and certain performance enhancements to the earlier specified algorithm. Working Group Summary The document was accepted for publication by the TCPM working group by clear consensus. The working group has extensively reviewed the earlier versions of the document, and the result represents the working group consensus. During the working group last call, there were no requests for changes and only comments were supportive of publication. Document Quality The document has employed the long-standing experience of various people working closely with simulated and native TCP SACK implementations. The current TCP SACK implementations are believed to apply closely similar algorithm than what described in this document, even though there may be implementation-specific variations. Personnel Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti . Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy . (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. Document Shepherd has reviewed the latest version of the document and thinks the document is ready for publication without further changes (apart from nits described below). (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no concerns with the current version of the document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed for this document, or its predecessor RFC 3517. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Considering the past discussions and a succesful working group last call, the shepherd's view is that this document represents a strong WG consensus. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. * The title page is missing the intended status * The document is missing IANA Considerations section (it has no considerations, but the section should be included nevertheless) * According to idnits, there are a few instances of too long lines and control characters * Two references [RFC2018] and [RFC3042] are not referred to from text These nits should be straightforward to fix before the final publication. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews are required for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document is a revision of RFC 3517, and intended to replace the earlier RFC, as implied by the draft name (draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis). This has not been otherwise explicitly indicated on the title page, abstract, or introduction, but the purpose is assumed to be understood by the TCPM participants. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document does not have any IANA considerations, and is currently missing the IANA considerations section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries are required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no sections that would require formal validation. |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Pasi Sarolahti (pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi) is the document shepherd' |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-01-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-01.txt |
2012-01-12
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-00.txt |