IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Mon, 18 May 2009 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.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 3F83B3A6E05 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 07:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 p1OUA3Iwsbn2 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (sequoia.muada.com [83.149.65.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461D93A6D76 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2009 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4IEOLLQ005705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 18 May 2009 16:24:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <B99977B8-9968-406C-9AF7-40FD2C6125D1@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: mallman@icir.org
In-Reply-To: <20090515123819.1C7EBD513E2@lawyers.icir.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:24:30 +0200
References: <20090515123819.1C7EBD513E2@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: tcpm@ietf.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
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 14:23:30 -0000

On 15 mei 2009, at 14:38, Mark Allman wrote:

>> I don't like the part about tracking the seqnum edges.

>> Why would someone send 400 byte packets when the MSS is 1400+?

> Something interactive like ssh.  Why do we give apps the chance to  
> turn
> off Nagle?  It's a big, ugly world with a vast range of behavior.

Yes, but you don't want all that behavior to be reflected in the  
decision tree in your TCP implementation.

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?

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status