Adding Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP
RFC 5690
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-05-16
|
06 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Sally Floyd" to "Sally Floyd, Janardhan Iyengar, David Ros, Andres Arcia" |
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from floyd@icir.org, draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org |
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings |
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
2010-02-04
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-04
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5690' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-03
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-07-04
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-06.txt |
2009-06-30
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-06-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-06-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-24
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Sorry, raised the Comment against the wrong document |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Sorry, raised the Discuss against the wrong document |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] You have some non-2119 language that may need attention. For example, in Section 2.2 PT is the payload type expected in the … [Ballot comment] You have some non-2119 language that may need attention. For example, in Section 2.2 PT is the payload type expected in the RTP header. A value of zero indicates that the receiver shall not check payload type to detect malformed packets. |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] In section 2.1 1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure- agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]): … [Ballot discuss] In section 2.1 1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure- agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]): a) Structure-agnostic E1 emulation - 32 b) Structure-agnostic T1 emulation: i) MUST be set to 24 for the basic mode ii) MUST be set to 25 for the "Octet-aligned T1" mode c) Structure-agnostic E3 emulation - 535 d) Structure-agnostic T3 emulation - 699 I cannot pare this. Does the "MUST" apply to future specifications? I.e., is it an instruction to IANA? Or are you trying to say... For structure-agnostic emulation, this parameter MUST be set to one of the following values. |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Previous Comment entered in error |
2009-06-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I don't think the use of the RFC 2119 boilerplate is appropriate. AFAICS, the only use of such language is in instructions to … [Ballot comment] I don't think the use of the RFC 2119 boilerplate is appropriate. AFAICS, the only use of such language is in instructions to the RFC Editor and the IANA. These instructions will be removed before publication and so the boilerplate is redundant and should be removed. |
2009-06-17
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] I can live with the IESG note as is, but after reading this draft, I think it might be more appropriate to change … [Ballot discuss] I can live with the IESG note as is, but after reading this draft, I think it might be more appropriate to change the IESG note to something along lines of: The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. See RFC 3932 for more information. |
2009-06-17
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Cullen Jennings |
2009-06-17
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-06-17
|
06 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-06-17
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-06-17
|
06 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-06-16
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-06-16
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-06-15
|
06 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Telechat date was changed to 2009-06-18 from 2009-07-02 by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Telechat date was changed to 2009-07-02 from 2009-06-18 by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-07-02 by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-04
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-06-04
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-06-04
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Note field has been cleared by Lars Eggert |
2009-05-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-05-21 by Amy Vezza |
2009-05-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Responsible AD has been changed to Lars Eggert from Russ Housley |
2009-05-15
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Change Notice email list have been change to floyd@icir.org, draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc@tools.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org from floyd@icir.org, draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc@tools.ietf.org |
2009-05-15
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an Informational Independent Submission: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt. Please let us know if this document conflicts … This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an Informational Independent Submission: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt. Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards process or other work being done in the IETF community. Adding Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP This document describes a possible congestion control mechanism for acknowledgement traffic (ACKs) in TCP. The document specifies an end-to-end acknowledgement congestion control mechanism for TCP that uses participation from both TCP hosts, the TCP data sender and the TCP data receiver. The TCP data sender detects lost or ECN-marked ACK packets, and tells the TCP data receiver the ACK Ratio R to use to respond to the congestion on the reverse path from the data receiver to the data sender. The TCP data receiver sends roughly one ACK packet for every R data packets received. This mechanism is based on the acknowledgement congestion control in DCCP's CCID 2. This acknowledgement congestion control mechanism is being specified for further evaluation by the network community. Four week timeout expires on 11 June 2009. |
2009-05-15
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-01-23
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt |
2008-07-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-04.txt |
2008-02-25
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-03.txt |
2007-11-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-02.txt |
2007-06-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-01.txt |
2007-04-16
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-00.txt |