Updating TCP to support Rate-Limited Traffic
draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpm WG)
Last updated 2013-10-09
Replaces draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Nov 2013 - Submit document on T... )
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state AD is watching
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Martin Stiemerling
Send notices to tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv@tools.ietf.org
TCPM Working Group                                          G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft                                           A. Sathiaseelan
Obsoletes: 2861 (if approved)                                  R. Secchi
Updates: 5681 (if approved)                       University of Aberdeen
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 10, 2013
Expires: April 13, 2014

              Updating TCP to support Rate-Limited Traffic
                       draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-03

Abstract

   This document proposes an update to RFC 5681 to address issues that
   arise when TCP is used to support traffic that exhibits periods where
   the sending rate is limited by the application rather than the
   congestion window.  It updates TCP to allow a TCP sender to restart
   quickly following either an idle or rate-limited interval.  This
   method is expected to benefit applications that send rate-limited
   traffic using TCP, while also providing an appropriate response if
   congestion is experienced.

   It also evaluates the Experimental specification of TCP Congestion
   Window Validation, CWV, defined in RFC 2861, and concludes that RFC
   2861 sought to address important issues, but failed to deliver a
   widely used solution.  This document therefore recommends that the
   status of RFC 2861 is moved from Experimental to Historic, and that
   it is replaced by the current specification.

   NOTE: The standards status of this WG document is under review for
   consideration as either Experimental (EXP) or Proposed Standard (PS).
   This decision will be made later as the document is finalised.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Fairhurst, et al.        Expires April 13, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                    October 2013

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Fairhurst, et al.        Expires April 13, 2014                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   new-CWV                    October 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited
       periods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  A method for preserving cwnd during the idle and
           application-limited periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Initialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  The nonvalidated phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.4.  TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase . . .  8
       4.4.1.  Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase . . .  9
       4.4.2.  Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase  . . . 10
       4.4.3.  Examples of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Author Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  Other related work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  Revision notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Show full document text