Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE
CORP] <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> wrote:

> I've been thinking we might wind up with some set of A/B/C in conjunction.
>  It seems like they don't have to be mutually exclusive since different
> hosts could implement different Experimenal policies, as long as each is
> felt to be reasonable for Experimental.  Of course, it would probably be
> better to have one Proposed Standard.
>

Agreed 100%.

To me it's an obvious choice if C) proves to be feasible, i.e., translating
into say,
no more than 50 lines of simple code, not inflicting any noticeable
performance
penalty, without any external dependencies, and actually works as expected
(i.e., attaining its goals of allowing a timely growth path for IW without
causing
significant more global congestions) then who would say no to that magic?

But it is still a long IF IMO. (Note I'm not saying I don't believe C) will
work.
It's just I still have my doubt.)

Also it seems to me a combination of A) and B) may serve those hosts that
just
can't do C) (e.g., either w/o persistent storage or having one but not
usable
for C)'s purpose).

Jerry

> ________________________________________
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Allman [mallman@icir.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:19 PM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd
>
> 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
>