IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com> Thu, 06 January 2011 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510943A6CAB for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:18:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.810, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4j8ISW56jXg for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:18:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ey0-f194.google.com (mail-ey0-f194.google.com [209.85.215.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456E63A6CF0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:18:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eya28 with SMTP id 28so2264205eya.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:20:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=z3ep+R395IAS7ADK7pFwzPMgj6N6nSHeUeDPJM3k8/s=; b=Hlsfw6loTwppUhuQubvi99shsSgf+tGDMX0Ji/knuz/0pTSzjiG9uprYKKIgwvZRon EGf5pDhcClGZQArU2VHdnPHvLF0xSO5JRvQd5ABFxgGItvRmdnrCm1ZUM0+I/St0Kbpp pIeIAtjKHYOU+fegvzqS83etxa35rb3H64d+8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QNazzs1g3i6inw1KbLuSjYkbWZmhIF64FoPJxAMDoCzLEE6RhoPtePyX9Y6YoL9wEy HsF6Mjj3tZtO7ehtat/b1noVjYZXVp0+/gGknvegrIKTm9vksTiQHPQyfcyDHi6tB2W1 W/o2P5C89RKPbVVyKhZLgXCG7bd9sQu+ghjT4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.22.142 with SMTP id n14mr18283032ebb.57.1294348816331; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:20:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.213.17.147 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:20:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110106181946.F0ECD2A38D2A@lawyers.icir.org>
References: <20110106181946.F0ECD2A38D2A@lawyers.icir.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=BVg7LhdosSkNXYkjsvHbYwq5gfoCSboEQsSJK@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
To: mallman@icir.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:18:12 -0000

As a firm believer in simplicity where possible, I have strong
reservations on (C).

If approach (D) is chosen, implementors will very soon start making
their own choices for non-standard IW.  It's not clear to me this is a
bad thing, but it could be.

  -John


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> wrote:
>
> Given that there are three proposals put down in I-D form in some matter
> of baked-ness I am wondering if there is any sort of clear WG preference
> on the *approach* to changing the initial window.  So, putting aside the
> particulars for a moment and just thinking about the approach I'd like
> to take a quick, informal, absolutely non-binding in any way (obviously)
> poll to take the WG's pulse.
>
> So, do you prefer ...
>
> (A) To increase the current static IW definition to a single updated
>    value.
>
>    (Current proposal: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-00.txt, but I am
>    explicitly not asking about IW=10, just IW=some_X.)
>
> (B) To increase the current static IW definition with a schedule of IW
>    updates to play out over some period of time.
>
>    (Current proposal: draft-allman-tcpm-bump-initcwnd-00.txt, but I am
>    explicitly not asking if you like the given schedule.)
>
> (C) To define a procedure for hosts to figure out how to adapt their IW
>    over time.
>
>    (Current proposal: draft-touch-tcpm-automatic-iw-00.txt, but I am
>    explicitly not asking if you buy the particulars of this, just the
>    overall approach.)
>
> (D) The current IW seems OK and I haven't seen a good reason to think it
>    needs changed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> allman
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email