Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Input for draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt

From: Vern Paxson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:42:21 PST

> Why would we (TSVWG) want to do that when we know that the current TCP
> retransmission timer as documented by draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt has some
> major problems, e.g., those discussed in our paper?

Same reason that RFC 2581 (Proposed Standard) doesn't address some of the
fast recovery problems that, e.g., RFC 2582 (Experimental) does.  The scope
of draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt is to document the de facto standard, not
to refine it.

		Vern

---

From: Reiner Ludwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 06:47:41 +0100

>of draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt is to document the de facto standard, not

OK. I assume that this is the consensus of the WG.

In that case, however, I'm confused about the purpose of a Proposed 
Standard. I thought that when the IETF publishes an RFC as PS then it says: 
"To the best of our knowledge, this is how it should (has to) be done."

I thought that things like documenting common practice *and* the problems 
with that were published as an Informational RFC.

The case with RFC 2581 was different. Even if there still were/are some 
corner case improvements to TCP's congestion control, there was no major 
problem with it, and the IETF could rightfully say: "To the best of our 
knowledge, this is how it should (has to) be done."

For TCP's retransmission timer this is not the case. It has major problems. 
I agree, though, that it's not a threat to the network because the 
combination of all problems results in a (too) conservative retransmission 
timer. But is that enough to justify a Proposed Standard?

///Reiner