Re: [tcpm] alternate IW proposal

Hi,

I agree that this is a neat idea.

BTW I also agree with the various comments regarding my proposal to  
let applications decide the IW; it was just an idea, for trying to  
find an easy compromise, but you guys convinced me that it was a  
stupid one.

Cheers,
Michael

On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:30 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> FWIW, I like this idea better, with the caveat that the doc needs to  
> explain:
>
> 	- what does "observing" mean?
>
> 	- what is the metric of "breaks"?
>
> Just putting an idea out there, with no metric for repeal or  
> success, is asking for trouble.
>
> Joe
>
> On 11/15/2010 9:39 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
>>
>> Dumb idea:
>>
>>   http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-allman-tcpm-bump-initcwnd-00.txt
>>
>> I.e.,
>>
>>   - Stop waving our hands about where things might break.
>>
>>   - Be less aggressive than the 10 segment IW proposed by Jerry,  
>> et.al.
>>
>>   - Do something.  And, start observing how it actually works.
>>
>>   - Get to 10 segments in 3 years.  But, with much less fluffy
>>     discussion and hand waving.
>>
>>   - Don't stop at 10 segments, but go all the way to 15 segments over
>>     the course of the next 9 years (which is how long it has been  
>> since
>>     we last increased the IW).
>>
>> allman, stirin' the pot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm