Subject: Re: [tcpm] RFC 793 (bis) vs. rto-consider

From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:55:55 +0000

> The issue is that the current version of the I-D rto-consider allows a lower
> frequency due to the use of the SHOULD. And this is different to my reading
> of RFC 793 and the standards-track specification of TCP, i.e., it is not
> consistent with the TCP standards.

I realize that my word "consistent" may not be perfect here, as a TCP implementation following the current standards-track TCP protocol specification should indeed meet the requirements of rto-consider. So a TCP implementation seems "consistent" with the guidance in rto-consider. The current TCP standards just have additional normative requirements beyond the protocol-agnostic guidance of rto-consider. But it actually does not matter  for the rto-consider document if TCP defines stricter requirements (e.g., a MUST instead of a SHOULD). Only the opposite would be a formal issue as it would be a downgrade.

Sorry my fuzzy wording

Michael