netdev - Re: TCP delayed ACK heuristic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:37 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: TCP delayed ACK heuristic

On 12/18/2012 11:00 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 16:39 +0000, David Laight wrote:
>> There are problems with only implementing the acks
>> specified by RFC1122.
>
> Yeah, the problem is if we can violate this RFC for getting better
> performance. Or it is just a no-no?
>
> Although RFC 2525 mentions this as "Stretch ACK Violation", I am still
> not sure if that means we can violate RFC1122 legally.

The term used in RFC1122 is "SHOULD" not "MUST."  Same for RFC2525 when 
it talks about "Stretch ACK Violation."   A TCP stack may have behaviour 
which differs from a SHOULD so long as there is a reasonable reason for it.

rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html