Greetings, I have taken on the AD sponsorship of draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt and am looking for some additional review before revisiting the subject of and IETF last call.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt/ from Martin Stiemerling . The concerns expressed in the IESG review of the independent stream submission of this document are visible here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt/ballot/311132/ The author and I have discussed and applied non-normative text to the document describing how TFTP implementations respond to persistent error conditions, inclusive of repeated loss. While somewhat different in effect than traditional implementations of RFC 1350, implementations of tftp window-size applying behavior consistent with current tftp implementations and the advice in draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt can be expected to do what tftp implementations do in the the face of persistent or pathological conditions (which is bail-out) e.g. fail. diff vs 08 which Martin was shepherding is visble here. http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09.txt While we could revisit the subject of advice that RFC 1350 provides to implementers with respect to when to bail-out (It doesn't provide any, nor do subsequent updates) existing lore, mature code and common sense (in addition to how it is commonly used) have effectively prevented TFTP from becoming a menace for more than two decades, a modest extension to allow transmission queues greater than lock-step transmission for supporting implementations should not in my view motivate significant concern but I'd like feedback on that... Thanks joel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
