Subject: [Tsvwg] Clarification on new I-D for SACK-based recovery

From: Murali Bashyam <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:27:20 -0800 (PST)

Mark / Ethan,

This is w.r.t  draft-allman-tcp-sack-02.txt. Is there any benefit to add the
detection of retransmitted segment loss to this draft (based on FACK and 
the saved snd_max as the scoreboard implementation already does)? Or has it 
been already considered and ruled out as not a requirement for SACK 
implementations ?

Murali Bashyam

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Ethan Blanton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:28:34 -0500

> been already considered and ruled out as not a requirement for SACK 

This document is not intended to be a requirement for SACK implementations;
the last paragraph of the introduction states that "Alternate SACK-based
recovery methods can be used in TCP as implementors see fit...".

Therefore, FACK is not incompatible with this document; usage of FACK with
this recovery algorithm is not discussed in the document, but there is no
reason it cannot be considered.  We believe, however, that it is outside the
intended scope of the draft.
Ethan

-- 
I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now.
		-- They Might Be Giants, "Ball & Chain"