IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] exegesis of 'Updates' -- was: ... reviewof draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 01 October 2008 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760BA28C166; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
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 9D8043A68BC; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, 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 vD7rx5rPB0Fi; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C518E3A691C; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.45] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m910qiLb016266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E2C9DC.5000607@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:52:44 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <200809302002.WAA09122@TR-Sys.de> <48E2A86E.5050602@isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4D6F@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <48E2B952.6080109@isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4DF8@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4DF8@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Alfred � <ah@tr-sys.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, iesg@iesg.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] exegesis of 'Updates' -- was: ... reviewof draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> <snip>
...
> RFC 1122 standardized the TCP congestion control algorithms and not RFC 793.
> So if it all 2581 has to update something it had to be 1122 not 793."
> 
> Anyways, this is my line of thinking and I haven't heard any convincing arguments so far. 

So why do you believe that 2581 updates 1122 and not 793? Or that 1122
wouldn't thus also update 793? Changes to the congestion control
algorithm are equivalent to the changes you propose - they change
behavior (reaction to certain events), but not the fundamental state
machine.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjiydwACgkQE5f5cImnZrufsgCffeaSP9EpzLYtfrXNzsnU5c3u
sXoAoNjRH8UgQEkfo9lhQZxq7MrahoDs
=Flme
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status