Skip to main content

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