Re: [tana] FW: New Version Notification for draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation-01

Thanks for those changes, Reinaldo!   --Robb

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I change the introduction to explain better P2P protocol dynamics and its
> effects.
>
> I also introduced a terminology section to find out if we are all talking
> about the same thing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reinaldo
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org>
> Date: Mon,  3 Nov 2008 16:32:01 -0800 (PST)
> To: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net>
> Cc: <jiyengar@fandm.edu>
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation-01
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation-01.txt
> has been successfuly submitted by Reinaldo Penno and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Filename:  draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation
> Revision:  01
> Title:   TANA Practices and Recommendations
> Creation_date:  2008-11-03
> WG ID:   Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 8
>
> Abstract:
> Applications routinely open multiple TCP connections.  For example,
> P2P applications maintain connections to a number of different peers
> while web browsers perform concurrent download from the same web
> server.  Application designers pursue different goals when doing so:
>
>
>  P2P apps need to maintain a well-connected mesh in the swarm while
> web browsers mainly use multiple connections to parallelize requests
> that involve application latency on the web server side.  But this
> practice also has impacts to the host and the network as a whole. For
> example, an application can obtain a larger fraction of the
> bottleneck than if it had used fewer connections. Although capacity
> is the most commonly considered bottleneck resource, middlebox state
> table entries are also an important resource for an end system
> communication.
>
> This documents clarifies the current practices of application design
> and reasons behind them, and discusses the tradeoffs surrounding the
> use of many concurrent TCP connections to one destination and/or to
> different destinations. Other resource types may exist, and the
> guidelines are expected to comprehensively discuss them.
>
> Conventions used in this document
>
> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
> document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 Error!
> Reference source not found..
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
> _______________________________________________
> tana mailing list
> tana@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tana
>

-- 
Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/