One minor nit on the new text, the term "controlled environment" is used
elsewhere in the RFC series in transport-related documents to describe
what you name "constrained environment".
Gorry
On 19/06/2020 16:02, Mark Allman wrote:
I just posted a new version of rto-consider (-16). The document,
diffs, etc. can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider/
I fixed a few nits that had been pointed out throughout the
document.
The main work in this rev is in the first two paragraphs of the
intro. I honed these based on the discussion with Stewart and
Gorry. Well, "honed" might ultimately look like "rewrote" even if
that wasn't the process or exactly my intention. :) I tried to pull
some of the notions from later in the document up here to the front
of the document, as requested. In particular, I brought forward the
notion of this document as a default and not as a one-size-fits-all.
I hope this addresses the concerns to a large extent.
I also want to make a meta point here, which is clearly about this
document, but also I think much more widely applicable. I continue
to believe that the Internet has grown to what it is in no small
part because at many crucial points we chose generality over
optimality. I do not believe we should shun generality---either in
terms of protocol development or the lessons we have learned. That
doesn't mean we cannot acknowledge places where more pointed
solutions may be appropriate. It doesn't mean we can't accommodate
different and non-general approaches in things like guidelines and
requirements. But, I think it'd be a pity if we couldn't write
general documents because there are cases where they will be
suboptimal or not applicable. There are always such cases. And, if
that is the gate, we're going to design a network we won't much care
for, I think. IMHO. FWIW.
allman
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
