Subject: [tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 07:43:49 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** What’s “network safety” in the context of this document?  How do I know I
have it?  IMO, precision is needed since there is normative language around
assuring it; and it likely has a different connotation when used in the
security operations setting.

** References supporting the following claims/observations would be helpful:

-- Section 1.  Per “… we leverage the conservative notion that loss is an
implicit indication of congestion .. it has historically served us well.”

-- Section 1.  Per “At this point, our experience leads to a recognition that
often specific tweaks that deviate from standardized time-based loss detectors
do not materially impact network safety with respect to congestion control.”

** Section 3.  S.1 and S.2.  The text would benefit from a more precise
definition of primary and last resort timers as these are scoping the document

** Section 6.  I might mention that one of the applications of loss
measurements in the network is in DoS detection.