Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

["Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <[e-mail]>]

I've been thinking we might wind up with some set of A/B/C in conjunction.  It seems like they don't have to be mutually exclusive since different hosts could implement different Experimenal policies, as long as each is felt to be reasonable for Experimental.  Of course, it would probably be better to have one Proposed Standard.

________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Allman [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:19 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

Given that there are three proposals put down in I-D form in some matter
of baked-ness I am wondering if there is any sort of clear WG preference
on the *approach* to changing the initial window.  So, putting aside the
particulars for a moment and just thinking about the approach I'd like
to take a quick, informal, absolutely non-binding in any way (obviously)
poll to take the WG's pulse.

So, do you prefer ...

(A) To increase the current static IW definition to a single updated
    value.

    (Current proposal: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-00.txt, but I am
    explicitly not asking about IW=10, just IW=some_X.)

(B) To increase the current static IW definition with a schedule of IW
    updates to play out over some period of time.

    (Current proposal: draft-allman-tcpm-bump-initcwnd-00.txt, but I am
    explicitly not asking if you like the given schedule.)

(C) To define a procedure for hosts to figure out how to adapt their IW
    over time.

    (Current proposal: draft-touch-tcpm-automatic-iw-00.txt, but I am
    explicitly not asking if you buy the particulars of this, just the
    overall approach.)

(D) The current IW seems OK and I haven't seen a good reason to think it
    needs changed.

Thanks!

allman