Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-tsvwg-prsctp-00

From: "Randall R. Stewart (home)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:44:08 -0500

Hi all:

I just want to summarize where I think we are from the comments
I have seen in this thread:

1) We will modify F5 to be more clear.. it will end up as follows
     (quoting from the XML source):
"
<t hangText="F5)">
 If a decision to "abandon" a chunk is made, no matter how such decision
is made, the appropriate congestion adjustment MUST be made as specified
in RFC2960 if the chunk later would have been marked
for retransmission (e.g. T3-Timeout or Fast Retransmit).
"

2) We have not a consensus either way on if we need to limit the number
     of forward TSN's.. I had put out a proposed text change... and asked
     for comments... Brian and Armando chimed in that no change was
     needed.. I am open to the group opinion... there are 3 basic things
     I have  heard of (onlist and off):
    a) No change
    b) only one FWD-TSN out per RTT (I lean towards this if we do
         anything)
    c) send a FWD-TSN every other SACK

   Opinons????

R

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

---

From: "Armando L. Caro Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:33:58 -0400 (EDT)

>     c) send a FWD-TSN every other SACK

If people feel that there is a need to reduce the number of FWD-TSNs, then
I vote for option b. Note that in doing so, the timeliness of the FWD-TNSs
may make PR-SCTP useless. If the forward path is lossy, then TSNs will get
lost and their corresponding FWD-TSNs will get lost as well. Reducing the
number of FWD-TSNs increases the number of RTTs needed to notify the peer
that a TSN is being abandoned by the sender. Since the sender can bundle
FWD-TSNs with outgoing data, I am not concerned about too many on the
wire.

~armando

0--                                                  --0
| Armando L. Caro Jr.      |  Protocol Engineering Lab |
| www.cis.udel.edu/~acaro  |    University of Delaware |
0--                                                  --0

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:19:40 -0600

Armando,

a) is the way to go.

I would surely like to see argument here as to why the supporters of b) or c)
think that they are necessary and limiting the number of SACKs is not.  For
example, in b) whare are not SACKs limited to every RTT?  Also, in c), where
are not SACKs limited to every other (current) SACK?

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦