RFC 3517: A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 6675.
Current version: RFC 6675 — A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document presents a conservative loss recovery algorithm for TCP that is based on the use of the selective acknowledgment (SACK) TCP option. The algorithm presented in this document conforms to the spirit of the current congestion control specification (RFC 2581), but allows TCP senders to recover more effectively when multiple segments are lost from a single flight of data. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3517
- Published
- April 2003
- Authors
- E. Blanton; M. Allman; K. Fall; L. Wang
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- wit
- Pages
- 13
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 6675
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3522The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCPCurrent
April 2003
- RFC 3540Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with NoncesCurrent
June 2003
- RFC 3390Increasing TCP's Initial WindowCurrent
November 2002
- RFC 3649HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion WindowsCurrent
December 2003
- RFC 3742Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion WindowsCurrent
March 2004
- RFC 3782The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery AlgorithmObsoleted
April 2004
- RFC 3042Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited TransmitCurrent
January 2001
- RFC 2988Computing TCP's Retransmission TimerObsoleted
November 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?