Retransmission Timeout Considerations
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpm WG)
Last updated 2016-04-26 (latest revision 2016-04-15)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Best Current Practice
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state AD is watching
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Mirja K├╝hlewind
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                                M. Allman
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                      ICSI
File: draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03.txt                 April 15, 2016
Intended Status: Best Current Practice
Expires: October 15, 2016

    
                 Retransmission Timeout Considerations

Status of this Memo

    This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
    not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
    translate it into languages other than English.
    
    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), its areas,
    and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.

    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."

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
    
    This Internet-Draft will expire on October 15, 2016.

Copyright Notice
    
    Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Abstract

    Each implementation of a retransmission timeout mechanism represents
    a balance between correctness and timeliness and therefore no
    implementation suits all situations.  This document provides
    high-level requirements for retransmission timeout schemes

Expires: October 15, 2016                                       [Page 1]
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-03.txt                           April 2016

    appropriate for general use in the Internet.  Within the
    requirements, implementations have latitude to define particulars
    that best address each situation.

Terminology

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
    [RFC2119].

1   Introduction

    Despite our best intentions and most robust mechanisms, reliability
    in networking ultimately requires a timeout and re-try mechanism.
    Often there are more timely and precise mechanisms than a timeout
    for repairing loss (e.g., TCP's fast retransmit [RFC5681], NewReno
    [RFC6582] or selective acknowledgment scheme [RFC2018,RFC6675])
    which require information exchange between components in the system.
    Such communication cannot be guaranteed.  Alternatively, information
    coding---e.g., FEC---can allow the recipient to recover from some
    amount of lost information without use of a retransmission.  This
    latter provides probabilistic reliability.  Finally, negative
    acknowledgment schemes exist that do not depend on continuous
    feedback to trigger retransmissions (e.g., [RFC3940]).  However,
    regardless of these useful alternatives, the only thing we can truly
    depend on is the passage of time and therefore our ultimate backstop
    to ensuring reliability is a timeout.  (Note: There is a case when
    we cannot count on the passage of time, but in this case we believe
    repairing loss will be a moot point and hence we do not further
    consider this case in this document.)

    Various protocols have defined their own timeout mechanisms (e.g.,
    TCP [RFC6298], SCTP [RFC4960], SIP [RFC3261]).  Ideally, if we know
    a segment will be lost before reaching the destination, a second
    copy of it would be sent immediately after the first transmission.
    However, in reality the specifics of retransmission timeouts often
    represent a particular tradeoff between correctness and
    responsiveness [AP99].  In other words we want to simultaneously:

      - Wait long enough to ensure the decision to retransmit is
        correct.  

      - Bound the delay we impose on applications before
        retransmitting. 
    
    However, serving both of these goals is difficult as they pull in
    opposite directions.  I.e., towards either (a) withholding needed
Show full document text