Great, thanks! On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi Ted, > > thanks for the quick reply and discussion. > > > Am 02.08.2018 um 20:03 schrieb Ted Lemon <[email protected]>: > > > > The issue is that turning on TCP_NODELAY doesn't actually do the right > thing, nor does removing the delayed ACK timer. Both of these are > heuristic solutions that apply across the entire session, and have negative > consequences (which is why they are on by default). > > > > What we need is actually a very small thing, in a sense: the ability to > say "I got the message, and will not be responding to it," so that the > existing heuristic is satisfied in exactly the same way that sending a > response satisfies it. > > > > It's true that on a gigabit ethernet, just turning off the heuristics > and sending whatever we have whenever we have it isn't likely to cause > problems, but this stuff also has to work in home networks and over > wide-area links and even low-bandwidth mobile links, where we can't assume > that we have as much headroom as we do on a gigabit ethernet link. > > > > We think that it is probably worth the IETF thinking about this problem, > yet at the same time that's out of scope for the current work. But not > talking about the problem at all in the current work means that when the > solution to this problem starts appearing in APIs, which seems likely, > there will be no advice in the document about what the implementation > should do. > > > > What we propose to do therefore is to put in a paragraph that briefly > mentions the issue and says "when unacknowledged messages are received, if > an API is present to inform the TCP layer that no response will be sent, > the responder SHOULD do so." And then the text from the section as it was > when you put the DISCUSS on it would go in an Appendix, so that it's clear > what's going on. We can then reference this section in the text telling > the implementation what to do. > > > > Will this satisfy your DISCUSS (assuming that we don't make mistakes in > how we document this)? > > Yes, please proceed and make the changes. I guess we can work on the > wording if you have text and if needed but moving it to the appendix makes > it less critical and is probably the right thing to do. > > Thanks! > Mirja > > > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
