Hi, Joel,
On 3/13/2014 3:22 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
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.
FWIW, this ought to be vetted in a broader venue, e.g., TSVWG. I'm not
very comfortable with AD sponsored standards-track updates.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt/
A quick check indicates a few disconnects, summarized below.
Joe
Congestion and Error Control
From a congestion control standpoint while the number of blocks in
a window does not represent a threat,
The entirety of TCP's congestion control is about managing the window
size; the same is true here. Increasing the window absolutely increases
the potential for congestion and represents a threat.
The doc includes a number of SHOULDs that are underspecified, e.g.,
SHOULD implement a timeout on retransmissions (what value?), and SHOULD
abort (under what conditions?)
How are retransmissions handled? Go-back-N is known problematic; SACK
requires a much more complex mechanism.
The document should also request that IANA register "windowsize" as the
TFTP option string (and IANA should have a registry of these - they
currently don't appear to).
----
