Thanks for the review, Brian, and for the well written document, authors/WG! :-)
Jari On 25 Nov 2014, at 02:41, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2014-11-25 > IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-04 > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: Almost ready > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > This is a well written document. > > > Minor issues: > ------------- > > There's quite a lot of discussion of the issues that would be caused by > lost ACKs, but it's also stated that "(in the worst case, loss will still > be available as a congestion signal of last resort)" and "However, it > should be noted that ECN feedback is not the last resort against > congestion collapse, because if there is insufficient response to > ECN, loss will ensue, and TCP will still react appropriately to loss." > > This doesn't address the issue that on physically lossy networks > (e.g. the networks that more and more user devices live on), TCP does > *not* react appropriately to loss, because it treats it as a congestion > signal, and slows down when that is completely the wrong thing to do. > > I think that the draft should recognise the fact that when a physically > lossy network is involved, ACK loss will be a real issue at exactly > the same time that conventional TCP is liable to misdiagnose congestion. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
