Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:36:54 -0300

At 17:56 28/09/2006, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

>So... just to backtrack to an earlier discussion on this: Using the 
>recommended algorithm you say" Consequently, the lower limit 
>(L_LIMIT) SHOULD be set to at least 100 seconds." Is there a reason 
>why we don't specify a required minimum UTO value for all cases? A 
>value of 100 seconds seems big for an RTO, over a normal Internet path.

How about this modification to the last paragraph of page 6:

"   To protect against these effects, implementations MUST impose limits
    on the user timeout values they accept and use.  In particular, the
    adopted user timeout MUST be larger than the last measured
    retransmission timeout (RTO) at the time of adoption, and
    SHOULD NOT be smaller than 100 seconds."

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

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