Have there been any updates to chapter and verse for the bounds of the
TCP Retransmission Timeout since RFC1122? I did a cursory search of
ietf.org and didn't see anything, but could have easily missed it.

sincerely,

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" <rick.jones2@hp.com> wrote:

> Have there been any updates to chapter and verse for the bounds of the
> TCP Retransmission Timeout since RFC1122? I did a cursory search of
> ietf.org and didn't see anything, but could have easily missed it.

The more recent discussions of which I'm aware are in RFCs 2581and 3168.
RFC 3168 specifically addresses Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN),
though, so maybe that's not what you're wondering about.

Bert

Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Rick Jones" <rick.jones2@hp.com> wrote:

> > Have there been any updates to chapter and verse for the bounds of the
> > TCP Retransmission Timeout since RFC1122? I did a cursory search of
> > ietf.org and didn't see anything, but could have easily missed it.

> The more recent discussions of which I'm aware are in RFCs 2581and 3168.
> RFC 3168 specifically addresses Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN),
> though, so maybe that's not what you're wondering about.

Indeed, those seem to address congestion control issues, but nothing
new about the upper and lower bounds for the TCP RTO.

thanks,

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...