Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

[Murari Sridharan <[e-mail]>]

Orders of magnitude jump in bandwidth, with majortiy of link upgrades take time so i prefer a simple approach, its been a while since we updated Cwnd and there is evidence of larger windows along the values proposed so i'd stongly prefer A. However hosts MUST monitor loss patterns and revert to older defaults and cache these settubgs per-network. We already cache per-network properties so it should be trivial to do. There are things i like in (B) which could be folded into a proposal recommending A. Everything else is unnecessarily complex and is likely to be error prone. 

Thanks
Murari 
________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf of Mark Allman [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:19 AM
To: [e-mail]
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