[tcpm] Request for input regarding the initial window increase
"SCHARF, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 12 July 2011 23:54 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A88C11E80AF for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.182
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nGYJ2YuJzPbS for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay2.alcatel.de (mailrelay2.alcatel.de [194.113.59.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADC611E80AE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de (slfsn1.rcs.de.alcatel-lucent.com [149.204.60.98]) by mailrelay2.alcatel.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p6CNsgu1013487 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:54:42 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:54:40 +0200
Message-ID: <133D9897FB9C5E4E9DF2779DC91E947C0654B57A@SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Request for input regarding the initial window increase
Thread-Index: AcxA7xCWInpOSAUpQ7iLQFJHwZvw7w==
From: "SCHARF, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 149.204.45.73
Subject: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initial window increase
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:54:44 -0000
Dear all, according to the TCPM charter, the working group has to determine the intended publication track for the document on increasing the initial window by Aug. 2011. In addition, there are some further open issues regarding an increase of TCP's permitted initial congestion window. I tried to narrow this down to three key questions: Question 1: Moving forward a fixed increase of the permitted TCP initial congestion window (draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-01)? Answer 1A: Fixed upper limit to proposed standard Answer 2B: Fixed upper limit to experimental Answer 3C: Something else (e. g., some adaptive scheme, or no change at all compared to RFC 3390); this would imply a substantial change of draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-01 Question 2: Maximum permitted initial congestion window? Answer 2A: 10 MSS for an MTU of 1500 byte as suggested by draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-01 (other MTUs are still TBD) Answer 2B: Another value (please suggest and justify) Question 3: Adaptive solution as an alternative? Answer 3A: Adoption of draft-touch-tcpm-automatic-iw-01 as WG item heading towards experimental Answer 3B: No adoption These questions have partly been discussed so far (e. g., http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg06221.html), but in order to determine the working group consensus, additional feedback and opinions from the group would be very helpful. This also includes the question whether there are further possibilities to be considered. The chairs plan to allocate some meeting time in Quebec City for this charter item, but prior input on the list would be highly welcome. Thanks! Michael Scharf and David Borman (TCPM co-chairs)
- [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initial wi… SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Michael Tüxen
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tcpm] Request for input regarding the initia… Mark Allman