IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com> Wed, 25 July 2007 15:30 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDioR-0006GQ-Be; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:07 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDioQ-0006GK-Dw for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:06 -0400
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com ([131.107.115.212]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDioP-0001j1-Nb for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:06 -0400
Received: from tk1-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.117) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.0.700.0; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:30:01 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C110.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.150]) by tk1-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.56.116.117]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:30:00 -0700
From: Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>
To: Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com>, "iyengar@cis.udel.edu" <iyengar@cis.udel.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:29:58 -0700
Subject: RE: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?
Thread-Index: AcfE34x4/kaoy+I9QP6mb/us7yMztgJ8FhxQ
Message-ID: <FCA794787FDE0D4DBE9FFA11053ECEB60C26A15BE2@NA-EXMSG-C110.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <b1e79256f18fcb6f81ae417fde5ca646@mac.com> <46770412.8090307@psc.edu> <46ffa03042528d92a9ea2875e1764b19@mac.com> <4685BEA0.8070705@mail.eecis.udel.edu> <f1d5abad477f76e4a7c5afef0b1dadf9@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <f1d5abad477f76e4a7c5afef0b1dadf9@mac.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Score: -8.0 (--------)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc: Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>, tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>, Mark Handley <M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Most modern stacks use fairly high-resolution timers to track Rtt and hence Rto which means Rto's can be small (although usually there is a minimum enforced). Given that is the case, this may be disadvantageous to applications that don't react "fast" enough. We have had code to decay cwnd on idle periods for a while now, but it has been disabled by default.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sally Floyd [mailto:sallyfloyd@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:51 PM
To: iyengar@cis.udel.edu
Cc: Murari Sridharan; Mark Handley; Jitu Padhye; tcpm
Subject: Re: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?

> I'm generally happy enough with RFC 2861 to support it to go to
> Proposed Standard. But, if we do not know more (or enough) about the
> implications of CWV than we did when RFC2861 was published, on what
> basis do we recommend that it change status?
>
> A show of hands by folks who know that it is used and has not caused
> complaints would also be very useful, IMHO.

Yes, I agree.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email