The RACK-TLP Loss Detection Algorithm for TCP
draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-15
Yes
(Martin Duke)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Comment
(2020-12-16 for -14)
Sent
[[ nits ]] [ section 3.1 ] * "Conceptually, RACK puts a virtual timer for" Instead of "puts" perhaps "uses", "keeps", "imagines", or something? [ section 4 ] * "a timestamp whose granularity that is finer" -> "a timestamp with a granularity that is finer", or "a timestamp whose granularity is finer", perhaps [ section 9.4 ] * "sender takes longer time" -> "sender takes a longer time"?
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment
(2020-12-16 for -14)
Sent
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2020-12-15 for -14)
Not sent
Thank you to Paul Wouters for the SECDIR review.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2020-12-17 for -14)
Sent
Section 1: In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. This addition to the RFC 8174 boiler text appears redundant and can be removed. I assume it predates RFC 8174.
Martin Duke Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-12-16 for -14)
Sent
Just a very small comment: — Section 1 — In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. I don’t particularly object to that quoted text, but it’s redundant: the (correct) BCP 14 boilerplate before it already says that. What’s the purpose of adding this text? (I’m guessing it’s a remnant: it was there with the old BCP 14 boilerplate frim 2119, and when you switched to 8174 you didn’t remove this.)
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-12-17 for -14)
Sent
Thanks for presenting this complicated topic in a very easy-to-read manner! Section 3.3.2 1. The reordering window SHOULD be set to zero if no reordering has been observed on the connection so far, and either (a) three segments have been delivered out of order since the last recovery I assume there's some subtle technical difference between "reordering" and "segments delivered out of order" that makes this a reasonable thing to say ... but it would be nice if the distincion was made more clear (whether here or in earlier text). Section 6.2 Among all the segments newly ACKed or SACKed by this ACK that pass the checks above, update the RACK.rtt to be the RTT sample calculated using this ACK. Furthermore, record the most recent Segment.xmit_ts in RACK.xmit_ts if it is ahead of RACK.xmit_ts. If Segment.xmit_ts equals RACK.xmit_ts (e.g. due to clock granularity limits) then compare Segment.end_seq and RACK.end_seq to break the tie. Perhaps we should state what the result of breaking the tie is used for (i.e., updating RACK.segment & co.)? To avoid the issue above, RACK dynamically adapts to higher degrees of reordering using DSACK options from the receiver. Receiving an ACK with a DSACK option indicates a possible spurious retransmission, suggesting that RACK.reo_wnd may be too small. The RACK.reo_wnd increases linearly for every round trip in which the sender receives some DSACK option, so that after N distinct round trips in which a DSACK is received, the RACK.reo_wnd becomes (N+1) * min_RTT / 4, with an upper-bound of SRTT. What constitutes a "distinct round trip"? Return min(RACK.min_RTT / 4 * RACK.reo_wnd_mult, SRTT) I suggest reordering the expression to be min(RACK.reo_wnd_mult * RACK.min_RTT / 4, SRTT), to avoid needing to consider the order of operations and operator precedence in the pseudocode. (soapbox: in formal mathematics, there is no "division" operation, just multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, in part because it makes dealing with associativity and commutativity of operations harder to reason about.) Section 8 sender SHOULD cancel any other pending timer(s). An implementation is to have one timer with an additional state variable indicating the type of the timer. nit: maybe "is expected to have one timer", to avoid any risk of being interpreted as over-specifying implementation behavior? Is there anything to say about increasing the usage of fast recovery (vs RTO) potentially having an aggregate effect globally on how much data is in flight and increasing the overall risk of congestion? (I mostly assume not, but it's kind of my job to ask.) Section 13.1 In terms of how we reference it, RFC 3042 seems like it could be informative.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-12-17 for -14)
Sent
Hi, I didn't manage to review the algorithm in detail (way outside my area), but surrounding text was clear, understandable and interesting for someone without TCP expertise, so thank you for that. One minor NIT would be the change the footer from "RACK" to "RACK-TLP". Section 9.5 talks about using RACK for other protocols and I wanted to confirm that it does mean only RACK and not RACK-TLP for this case. Regards, Rob