IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] draft-minshall-nagle

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE76F1A0019 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Z8rQDNwlMDW for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7043A1A0009 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s531wcjh029185 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:58:38 -0400
Received: (qmail 22773 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jun 2014 01:58:38 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 69.81.143.143
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.108?) (wes@mti-systems.com@69.81.143.143) by 0 with ESMTPA; 3 Jun 2014 01:58:38 -0000
Message-ID: <538D2BCC.8030906@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:58:36 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/XX8ftFA1V7s3I-xqAVpbQujqO0s
Subject: [tcpm] draft-minshall-nagle
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 01:58:48 -0000

I was working on an issue with Nagle in a space system, and
noticed that the Linux kernel actually implements the "Minshall"
version of the Nagle algorithm, described nicely in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minshall-nagle-01

There are a couple later papers I was able to find also that
describe this.

To me, this looks like clearly a good thing that should be
recommended in the RFCs where we currently just have discussion
of "standard Nagle".  Apparently it was adopted in Linux, but I
wonder if it was picked up or not in other OSes as well.

Does anyone have history on why this draft never progressed?
Maybe someone has current contact information for Greg Minshall?

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email