Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-10-13
Requested 2015-10-12
Authors Per Hurtig , Anna Brunstrom , Andreas Petlund , Michael Welzl
I-D last updated 2015-10-19
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -08 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-08-opsdir-telechat-wicinski-2015-10-19
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2015-10-19

[I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's

ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 

 These comments were written with the intent of improving the 

operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed 

in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. 

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any 

other last call comments. ]

Status: Ready

This document describes an experimental modification to the TCP 

Retransmission Timeout (RTO) to act more aggressivly in connections that 

are short-lived or application limited.  It's well written and

The document is for both TCP and SCTCP, though primarily the TCP 

implementation is discussed. This is fine as it is experimental.

I found one thing in the introduction:

   This document describes a modified sender-side algorithm for managing
   the TCP and SCTP retransmission timers that provides faster loss

I believe that it should be "provide" singular and not plural.

In section 4, there is this text:

   The RECOMMENDED value of rrthresh is four, as this value will ensure
   that RTOR is only used when fast retransmit cannot be triggered.
   This update needs TCP implementations to track the time elapsed since
   the transmission of the earliest outstanding segment (T_earliest).

The text is saying the implementation track time elapsed, so should it say:

"With this update, TCP implementations MUST track the time elapsed..."?


In writing this, Spencer Dawkins YES email came through and I agree with 

the edits he proposed.