The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm
draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2012-02-06
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2012-02-03
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2012-02-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2012-02-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-02-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-02-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2012-02-01
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2012-02-01
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2012-01-24
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Please consider the comments raised in the Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Nov-2011. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06919.html |
2012-01-24
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Nov-2011 against -03 of this document raised several concerns. Draft -04 has been posted, … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Nov-2011 against -03 of this document raised several concerns. Draft -04 has been posted, but none of the concerns were addressed, nor was Ben told why his concerns were incorrect. Please respond to these concerns from Ben's Gen-ART Review: -- Appendix A refers the reader to RFC 3782 for additional information. But this draft purports to obsolete that RFC. If there is important information in it that document that is not covered by this draft, then it doesn't really obsolete it. Is there a reason that information was not brought forward into this draft? -- There is very little RFC 2119 normative language. On a quick scan, I see one capitalized SHOULD NOT and one MAY. Yet it seems like there are other statements that are just as important for correct behavior as those. For the sake of consistency, it might be easiest to just drop the RFC 2119 language entirely. |
2012-01-24
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-01-20
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-05.txt |
2012-01-12
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Ben Campbell. |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-15
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-14
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Please consider the comments raised in the Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Nov-2011. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06919.html |
2011-12-14
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Nov-2011 against -03 of this document raised several concerns. Draft -04 has been posted, … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Nov-2011 against -03 of this document raised several concerns. Draft -04 has been posted, but none of the concerns were addressed, nor was Ben told why his concerns were incorrect. Please respond to these concerns from Ben's Gen-ART Review: -- Appendix A refers the reader to RFC 3782 for additional information. But this draft purports to obsolete that RFC. If there is important information in it that document that is not covered by this draft, then it doesn't really obsolete it. Is there a reason that information was not brought forward into this draft? -- There is very little RFC 2119 normative language. On a quick scan, I see one capitalized SHOULD NOT and one MAY. Yet it seems like there are other statements that are just as important for correct behavior as those. For the sake of consistency, it might be easiest to just drop the RFC 2119 language entirely. |
2011-12-14
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-12-14
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-12-14
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-13
|
05 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] I read the document. I got a bit lost in the details. The document appears to be well-written. in section 2, This … [Ballot comment] I read the document. I got a bit lost in the details. The document appears to be well-written. in section 2, This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the terms SENDER MAXIMUM SEGMENT SIZE (SMSS), CONGESTION WINDOW (cwnd), and FLIGHT SIZE (FlightSize) defined in [RFC5681]. FLIGHT SIZE is defined as in [RFC5681] as follows: If you assume the reader is familiar with the FLIGHT SIZE definition, why repeat it here? If you repeat the defintion of flight size here, why not SMSS and CWND as well? It would have been good to have a tsvdir review of this document. |
2011-12-13
|
05 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-13
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-13
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-12
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-12
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-09
|
05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-08
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2011-12-08
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2011-12-05
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-05
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-12-15 |
2011-12-05
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2011-12-05
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Ballot has been issued |
2011-12-05
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-12-05
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup. |
2011-12-04
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2011-12-04
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-04.txt |
2011-12-01
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-11-24
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2011-11-21
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Ben Campbell. |
2011-11-21
|
05 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-11-11
|
05 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2011-11-08
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2011-11-08
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2011-11-08
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2011-11-08
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2011-11-07
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2011-11-07
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: - 'The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 5681 documents the following four intertwined TCP congestion control algorithms: slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recovery. RFC 5681 explicitly allows certain modifications of these algorithms, including modifications that use the TCP Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) option (RFC 2883), and modifications that respond to "partial acknowledgments" (ACKs which cover new data, but not all the data outstanding when loss was detected) in the absence of SACK. This document describes a specific algorithm for responding to partial acknowledgments, referred to as NewReno. This response to partial acknowledgments was first proposed by Janey Hoe. This document obsoletes RFC 3782. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-11-07
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Last Call was requested |
2011-11-07
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-11-07
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-11-07
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-11-07
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-10-31
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-10-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? David Borman (david.borman@windriver.com) is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed this version and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had review in the TCPM working group. Since the -02 version of the document only one comment was received on the mailing list, and that was responded to by the authors with no change to the document. The comment was: > Maybe a stupid question, but section 4.2 reads like some cross over with > the Eifel RFC3522 / RFC4015 algorithms, which are encumbered by IPR - > some partially open (but non-GPL) and commercial implementations appear > to be forbidden for Eifel. And the response from the author: > I discussed this offline with the NewReno authors and we believe that > the use of timestamps in RFC 3782 is quite different than the use in > RFC 3522 (Eifel) The -03 version was generated to address some issues found in the -02 version by ID nits. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There has been no resistance to this document. Most of the discussion has been around clarification and fine tuning the details. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The results of ID nits are: > -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first > submitted on or after 10 November 2008. Does it really need the > disclaimer? The document is a revision of an earlier RFC, so this is correct. > == Unused Reference: 'RFC6298' is defined on line 512, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > == Unused Reference: 'F98' is defined on line 524, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > == Unused Reference: 'F03' is defined on line 529, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > == Unused Reference: 'PF01' is defined on line 575, but no explicit > reference was found in the text These are all relavent to this document, they just aren't explicitly referenced in the body. > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2001 (ref. > 'F98') (Obsoleted by RFC 2581) > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2582 > (Obsoleted by RFC 3782) In both these cases, the reference is intentional. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are properly split. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations are present and specify no actions for IANA. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not Applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. From the abstract: RFC 5681 documents the following four intertwined TCP congestion control algorithms: slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recovery. RFC 5681 explicitly allows certain modifications of these algorithms, including modifications that use the TCP Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) option (RFC 2883), and modifications that respond to "partial acknowledgments" (ACKs which cover new data, but not all the data outstanding when loss was detected) in the absence of SACK. This document describes a specific algorithm for responding to partial acknowledgments, referred to as NewReno. This response to partial acknowledgments was first proposed by Janey Hoe. This document obsoletes RFC 3782. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing exceptional occurred during the working group process for this document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is an update to TCP NewReno, to address issues that have been found with existing RFC 3782 implementations. In the Acknowledgments section: Many thanks to Anil Agarwal, Mark Allman, Armando Caro, Jeffrey Hsu, Vern Paxson, Kacheong Poon, Keyur Shah, and Bernie Volz for detailed feedback on this document or on its precursor, RFC 2582. Jeffrey Hsu provided clarifications on the handling of the recover variable that were applied to RFC 3782 as errata, and now are in Section 8 of this document. Yoshifumi Nishida contributed a modification to the fast recovery algorithm to account for the case in which flightsize is 0 when the TCP sender leaves fast recovery, and the TCP receiver uses delayed acknowledgments. Alexander Zimmermann provided several suggestions to improve the clarity of the document. |
2011-10-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-10-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'David Borman (david.borman@windriver.com) is the document shepherd. ' added |
2011-10-22
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-03.txt |
2011-10-22
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-04-21
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-02.txt |
2011-03-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-01.txt |
2011-01-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-00.txt |