IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01

Joshua Blanton <jblanton@irg.cs.ohiou.edu> Mon, 18 May 2009 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jblanton@irg.cs.ohiou.edu>
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 B6FE23A6D28 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 09:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 A+Y92sjx11fZ for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 09:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com (hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com [71.74.56.124]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47623A68F9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauser.ipx.ath.cx ([75.186.30.55]) by hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090518161422721.DPKI8008@hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 16:14:22 +0000
Received: by mauser.ipx.ath.cx (Postfix, from userid 500) id A50DD18274; Mon, 18 May 2009 12:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:14:21 -0400
From: Joshua Blanton <jblanton@irg.cs.ohiou.edu>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Message-ID: <20090518161421.GA25791@mauser.ipx.ath.cx>
Mail-Followup-To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, mallman@icir.org, tcpm@ietf.org
References: <20090515123819.1C7EBD513E2@lawyers.icir.org> <B99977B8-9968-406C-9AF7-40FD2C6125D1@muada.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B99977B8-9968-406C-9AF7-40FD2C6125D1@muada.com>
X-Operating-System: Linux
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Joshua Blanton <jblanton@irg.cs.ohiou.edu>
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: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:13:14 -0000

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Would it be possible to specify a single behavior that is simple,  
> provides the intended benefits in the common cases that compromise 90%  
> or more of all cases and doesn't do worse than what we have today in the 
> remaining cases?

Is that not what section 2.1 describes?  Note that the
boundary-tracking method is *optional* - as is the byte-counting
method - so if an implementor feels that boundary tracking is an
unacceptable burden, it can be left out.  Similarly, if an
implementor feels that the byte-counting method is too inexact, the
boundary-tracking version may be chosen.

Josh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email