Skip to main content

The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP
RFC 4015

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from <mankin@psg.com>, <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>,<Reiner.Ludwig@ericsson.com> to <mankin@psg.com>, <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten
2005-02-24
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2005-02-24
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4015' added by Amy Vezza
2005-02-18
06 (System) RFC published
2004-10-08
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-10-07
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-10-07
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-10-07
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-10-07
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2004-10-07
06 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten
2004-09-15
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-09-15
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-06.txt
2004-05-28
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-05-27
2004-05-27
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Amy Vezza
2004-05-27
06 Thomas Narten
[Ballot discuss]
> 5. IPR Considerations
>
>    The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
>    regard to some …
[Ballot discuss]
> 5. IPR Considerations
>
>    The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
>    regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
>    document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
>    rights at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

I didn't find an IPR statement for this document on the IETF web
page. Is there actually IPR associated with this document? If not, the
above statement presumably shouldn't be in the document.
2004-05-27
06 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Thomas Narten
2004-05-27
06 Thomas Narten
[Ballot comment]
>    The Eifel response algorithm relies on a detection algorithm such as
>    the Eifel detection algorithm defined in [RFC3522 …
[Ballot comment]
>    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.
2004-05-27
06 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-05-27
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Allison Mankin
2004-05-27
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot comment]
Perhaps add Mark Allman with you to the reviewers (in the writeup), since his review in the
WG was so significant?
2004-05-27
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-05-27
06 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-05-27
06 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-05-27
06 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
I'm sure this is a beautiful algorithm.
But after reading the RFC, I still have no knowledge on whether or not I should …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2004-05-27
06 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-05-26
06 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2004-05-26
06 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-05-26
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
In the security considerations, we learn that the Eifel
  response algorithm SHOULD only be run together with detection
  algorithms that are …
[Ballot comment]
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."
2004-05-26
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-05-26
06 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-05-25
06 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin
2004-05-24
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie
2004-05-24
06 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
In Section 2., the draft says:

  If the Eifel response algorithm is implemented at the TCP sender, it
  MUST be implemented …
[Ballot comment]
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?
2004-05-24
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-05-24
06 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-05-21
06 Jon Peterson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-05-27 by Jon Peterson
2004-05-21
06 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson
2004-05-21
06 Jon Peterson Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson
2004-05-21
06 Jon Peterson Created "Approve" ballot
2004-05-06
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2004-04-22
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-04-22
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-04-21
06 Jon Peterson Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson
2004-04-21
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-04-21
06 (System) Last call text was added
2004-04-21
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-04-21
06 Jon Peterson State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Jon Peterson
2004-04-05
06 Jon Peterson State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson
2004-04-05
06 Jon Peterson State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Jon Peterson
2004-04-05
06 Jon Peterson [Note]: 'Responsible: Working Group' has been cleared by Jon Peterson
2004-04-05
06 Jon Peterson State Change Notice email list have been change to <mankin@psg.com>, <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>,<Reiner.Ludwig@ericsson.com> from <mankin@psg.com>, <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
2004-04-05
06 Jon Peterson Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2004-03-18
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-05.txt
2003-10-30
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-04.txt
2003-03-29
06 Jon Peterson Shepherding AD has been changed to Peterson, Jon from Bradner, Scott
2003-03-04
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-03.txt
2002-12-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-02.txt
2002-11-04
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-01.txt
2002-08-31
06 Scott Bradner Draft Added by sob
2002-08-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-00.txt