Re: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?

For application limited workloads such as streaming over TCP, we have 
found that the CW validation mechanism, which decays CW for a sufficiently 
long application-limited period, can increase sensitivity to timeouts.
-s

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Sally Floyd wrote:

> This email is to ask the working group if RFC 2861 on Congestion
> Window Validation (CWV) should be left at Experimental, or whether
> it is time to start the process of moving it to Proposed Standard.
>
> RFC 2861, from June 2000, "describes a simple modification to TCP's
> congestion control algorithms to decay the congestion window cwnd
> after the transition from a sufficiently-long application-limited
> period, while using the slow-start threshold ssthresh to save
> information about the previous value of the congestion window.
>
> RFC 2861 also recommends that "the TCP sender should not increase
> the congestion window when the TCP sender has been application-limited
> (and therefore has not fully used the current congestion window)".
>
> My understanding is that CWV has been included in Linux since
> Linux 2.4, but that it is not included in Microsoft.
>
> Are there any experience reports about CWV (positive or negative),
> or experience reports of problems (or the absence of problems) for
> TCP connections without CWV?  Or are there other opinions about
> whether it is time to start the process of moving RFC 2861 to
> Proposed Standard?  Any feedback would be welcome.
>
> - Sally
> http://www.icir.org/floyd/
>
> In the spirit of doing due diligence with old Experimental RFCs...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm