On 3/14/14, 1:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > 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.
This is very useful feedback. The process that got this thing from an independent stream submission in iesg conflict review to where we are today is somewhat torturous, that's why I'm asking. >> 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?) I sympathize with the authors lack of desire to specify specific values which may be appropriate now but not into the future. That said. I would be happier with examples. (I am aware of some of them) > 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). Yes that seems necessary. > > ---- >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
