Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

Certain implementors have already choosen, if the points in Dave's presentation are adopted to main linux, for all I know.

For the record, given the simplicity I would prefer (A) for low-end / "closed" environment applications, and (C) for high-volume + public deployments (ie. Home users/corporate intranets could do with a single updated IW; operators who could have an impact on a larger (global) scale to the public internet, should go with (C) - adding some accountability, basically).

Regards,
   Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Heffner [mailto:johnwheffner@gmail.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 06. Jänner 2011 22:20
> To: mallman@icir.org
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd
> 
> As a firm believer in simplicity where possible, I have strong
> reservations on (C).
> 
> If approach (D) is chosen, implementors will very soon start making
> their own choices for non-standard IW.  It's not clear to me this is a
> bad thing, but it could be.
> 
>   -John
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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