Subject: [tcpm] Can we advance F-RTO from Experimental?

From: William Gilliam <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:22:12 -0700

TCPM folks,

At the Vancouver (IETF 64) meeting, during the discussion about possibly
advancing some RFCs, I suggested that it may be time to consider moving
F-RTO (RFC 4138) from Experimental to Standards-Track.  I'd now like to
pass this suggestion on to the folks on the mailing-list.

In the Paris meeting (IETF 63), Kazunori Yamamoto presented the positive
results of field testing F-RTO. (The presentation slides are available  
at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/slides/tcpm-4/sld1.htm.)
Implementations of F-RTO are currently deployed in Linux and HP-UX, and
it seems that an implementation is part of Microsoft Windows Vista and
Longhorn (according to  
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/ 
cg1105.mspx).

Have there been any reports of F-RTO hurting the network?  Personally, I
haven't heard any, but I'd be interested in hearing whatever relevant
reports are available.

Thanks.

WG

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

---

From: Pasi Sarolahti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:03:52 +0300

> pass this suggestion on to the folks on the mailing-list.

Moving F-RTO to PS would be ok for us, so if the WG decides that is the
way to go, we are ready to use cycles for it. We are not aware of any
significant issues with F-RTO, so it shouldn't take much effort on the
editorial side. Of course any implementor feedback would be useful, for
example regarding any possible unclear spots in the document.

> haven't heard any, but I'd be interested in hearing whatever relevant

Same here. Also, if someone knows scenarios where use of F-RTO is
particularly disadvantageous for the sender, we'd be interested to know.

Thanks!

- Pasi & Markku