Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer
RFC 6298

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2011-04-28)
No email
send info
Thank you for writing this.

I do agree that the issue raised by Adrian needs to be resolved, however.

(Wesley Eddy) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-27)
No email
send info
I agree with Adrian's discuss.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-27)
No email
send info
I notice the file name for the document is draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis
(not draft-ietf...).  I can't tell from the history or the document writeup,
so may I assume the document was formally adopted as a working group
work item and went through a working group last call?

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-27)
No email
send info
1. I support Adrian's DISCUSS.

2. In the Introduction Section: 

> In some situations it may be beneficial for a TCP sender to be more
   conservative than the algorithms detailed in this document allow.
   However, a TCP MUST NOT be more aggressive than the following
   algorithms allow.


s/TCP MUST NOT/TCP sender MUST NOT/

Also this paragraph should probably be moved to a later section, as it is not common practice to include key-worded statements in the Introduction, and certainly not before the paragraph that explains the role of keywords notations. 

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-25)
No email
send info
Support Adrian's discuss

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-26)
No email
send info
I support Adrian's discuss.

Sec 6: r/This document requires a TCP to wait/This document requires a TCP *sender* to wait ?

As noted in the SECDIR review there really needs to be a more overt homage to the security considerations in 5681.  Something like the following would suffice:

   Refer to [RFC5681] for TCP congestion control security considerations.