Re: [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd

[Kacheong Poon <[e-mail]>]

On 01/ 7/11 02:34 AM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] wrote:
> I've been thinking we might wind up with some set of A/B/C in
> conjunction.  It seems like they don't have to be mutually exclusive
> since different hosts could implement different Experimenal policies,
> as long as each is felt to be reasonable for Experimental.  Of
> course, it would probably be better to have one Proposed Standard.


Agreed.  I don't think one size fits all.  A procedure to find out
the right value in one site may not be applicable to another site.
It seems that folks are too eager in finding a "universal" solution
when one may not exist.  If (C) is rephrased as

Define some guidelines which a site MAY follow to determine the
right IW.

I'd vote for that.  Otherwise, I'd vote for (A) and wait for the
next time this issue comes up again :-)  This is not (B) since
I cannot see the future so I don't believe a schedule of updates
can be made.


> ________________________________________

> From: [e-mail]
> [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Allman [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:19 PM To: [e-mail] Subject:
> [tcpm] informal poll about initial cwnd
>
> 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 [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm


-- 

					K. Poon.
					[e-mail]