Subject: [tcpm] Comments draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-02

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:16:13 +0100

Dear all,

I just read the document and have two comments:

1. In section 2 the usage of ">>" is specified but ">>" is never used. I guess
   the paragraph can be removed.

2. It is stated two times:
   Additionally, TCB interdependence can be applied to any protocol
   with congestion state, including SCTP [RFC4960] and DCCP [RFC434],
   as well as for individual subflows in Multipath TCP [RFC6824].
   I think it should be made clear that information can also be
   shared between protocols. I also don't see why you can only do
   this between protocols having a congestion control. You might
   even want to share PMTU, MMS_S, MMS_R, RTT, RTTvar with protocols
   not providing a congestion control.

Best regards
Michael, as an individual

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:00 -0700

Hi,  Michael,

>    the paragraph can be removed.
We'll wait on that for now. If we go BCP, then this might be useful.

>    not providing a congestion control.
We'll check. This is complicated by policy routing, of course. Also, we
need to check which of these values are truly transport, or merely
derived from network values already shared.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Joe