Re: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <> Fri, 25 June 2010 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A9F3A6983 for <>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J6YVy4VsVUbQ for <>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815523A68E6 for <>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F69148035; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:11:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5PKBkOW006456; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:11:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:11:46 -0500
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <>
To: Jerry Chu <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:11:45 -0500
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?
Thread-Index: AcsUntmdk2VEs0MFTDy1pTy9oZqP/gAAIEbg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-06-25_09:2010-02-06, 2010-06-25, 2010-06-25 signatures=0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:11:40 -0000

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Chu []
>Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:45 PM
>To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]
>Subject: Re: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?
>Hi Wes,
>How about other proposals that are still waiting to get on the WG
>Since our "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" proposal in Anaheim, we've
>more experiments and have a lot more data to present. We've also been
>pressed to make forward progress. I was hoping to meet you and many
>f2f in Maastricht to discuss our data. It looks like the alternative
>is ICCRG. (A request for presentation slots has been sent to ICCRG.)

Hi Jerry, thanks for the update.  In both cases, would it be possible
to get some of that new data out to the list?  I think people would
appreciate having time to look at it rather than seeing it for the
first time in the meeting.  As we found in Anaheim, there's more
data then there is ample time to set the context, present it all, and
answer questions about it, plus have the discussion about next steps.

On the 2988bis document, since it's been discussed on the list and
in person for a while, and evolved based on feedback, I'd guess it's
time that we poll the list for adoption as a WG item; if you agree,
we can kick that off.

The way we left Anaheim's meeting was, I think, that you were going
to update the draft to talk about why the minimum RTO isn't proposed
for reduction as well, think about the effect on slow links with a
long RTT, and potential effects of the lower RTO on other (non-HTTP)
applications.  If you want to add those prior to polling the WG for
adoption of the document, it might help.

Increasing the initial window was more hotly discussed both in TCPM
and in ICCRG, but there doesn't seem to have been much follow-up
discussion on the lists in the mean time.  There was clear interest
in continuing to talk about this in TCPM, though I didn't get the
impression that we were ready to ask TCPM to make it a work item
yet.  I may be wrong.  

I think this is the first agenda request for ICCRG in Maastricht, and
people were really interested in it at the Anaheim meeting, so it
should get ICCRG time in Maastricht.  We had decided in Anaheim that
we wanted to avoid giving the same presentation to both groups again,
so if TCPM doesn't meet, that makes it easy (half-kidding).  One
suggestion was to have a joint meeting; this may be a good idea for
Maastricht if the ICCRG chairs agree ;).

Wes Eddy
MTI Systems