The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP
RFC 4015
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes
Perhaps add Mark Allman with you to the reviewers (in the writeup), since his review in the WG was so significant?
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) Yes
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection
I'm sure this is a beautiful algorithm. But after reading the RFC, I still have no knowledge on whether or not I should be interested in adding this to my TCP implementation. - Always? - Only when I am in an environment where non-congestion loss is common? - Only if I like having more code in my TCP? - Other criteria? This is not worth braking the progress of the document for. But I miss it.
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
In the security considerations, we learn that the Eifel response algorithm SHOULD only be run together with detection algorithms that are known to be safe against such "ACK spoofing attacks." Are there other characteristics of detection algorithms that ought to be considered? I would like to see the section 1 list the characteristics of an "appropriate detection algorithm."
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
In Section 2., the draft says: If the Eifel response algorithm is implemented at the TCP sender, it MUST be implemented together with a detection algorithm that is specified in an RFC. Is there any expectation of specific RFC categories?
(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
> The Eifel response algorithm relies on a detection algorithm such as > the Eifel detection algorithm defined in [RFC3522]. That document > discusses the relevant background and motivation that also applies to > this document. Hence, the reader is expected to be familiar with > [RFC3522]. Note that alternative response algorithms have been seems like a normative reference to 3522 (experimental). This text itself seems to argue that the text is normative (i.e, by saying "reader is expected to be familiar with"). Does this need to be normative? > (DET) This is a placeholder for a detection algorithm that must > be executed at this point. In case [RFC3522] is used as > the detection algorithm, steps (1) - (6) of that algorithm > go here. What does this step do, in terms of what _this_ spec needs to know? Does it produce a results that says "spurius retransmit detected, execute step 7"? (that is kind of what I would think, since the response would presumbaly only be executed when needed...) It would be good to make this more clear.