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 5681), but allows TCP senders to recover more effectively when multiple segments are lost from a single flight of data. This document obsoletes RFC 3517 and describes changes from it. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6675
- Published
- August 2012
- Authors
- E. Blanton; M. Allman; L. Wang; I. Jarvinen; M. Kojo; Y. Nishida
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- wit
- Pages
- 15
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoletes:
- RFC 3517
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8084Network Transport Circuit BreakersCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 2581TCP Congestion ControlObsoleted
April 1999
- RFC 6679Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDPUpdated
August 2012
- RFC 6642RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extension for a Third-Party Loss ReportCurrent
June 2012
- RFC 6633Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench MessagesCurrent
May 2012
- RFC 6582The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery AlgorithmCurrent
April 2012
- RFC 7141Byte and Packet Congestion NotificationCurrent
February 2014
- RFC 6093On the Implementation of the TCP Urgent MechanismObsoleted
January 2011
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?