Subject: [tcpm] comments on draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-02

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 05:06:00 +0200 (EET)

It may be needless to say this, as my stance should be pretty obvious, but..

I re-read draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-02.txt on the plane and IMHO it's
ready to be adopted as WG item for Informational, and even WG last called
very soon afterwards.

I think the text is very convincing as a whole.  Appendix A.1 could have
been even more clear that the "more conservative approach" doesn't really
fix the problem, as reducing the timeout from 3 minutes to (say) 75
seconds doesn't help at all.  If the timeout is more than 5-10 seconds, it's
too long (and I'd say even 5-10 secs per address is too long but may be on
the borderline of a bearable user experience).

editorial
---------

    Additionaly, it describes a modification to TCP's reaction to soft
...
    Additionaly, it documents a modification to TCP's policy of reaction

==> s/naly/nally/

    In case a host does receive an ICMP error message meant for an
    ongoing TCP connection, the IP layer will pass this message up to

==> s/meant for/related to/ ?

    [6]  Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "Issues with Dual Stack IPv6
         on by Default", draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03 (work in
         progress), July 2004.

==> please put this as an informative reference, as the current status of
the document is uncertain; it's not 100% clear if it's going to be published
or not and on which time scale if so.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm