Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

At Friday 02/11/2007 15:26 -0700, Joe Touch wrote:

>speakeasy wrote:
>> 
>> On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:00 AM, MURALI BASHYAM wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Clearly there seems to be no consensus on where the problem lies. 
>>> I've heard that it's not a transport problem, and that the
>>> responsibility for mitigating the problem lies with a) sockets API, b)
>>> OS, and
>>> c) the application. That's as varied a response as one can get...
>>>
>> 
>> There is no need for TCPM to decide which of the three is the best
>> solution, since all
>> three solutions can interoperate on the wire.
>
>I agree - the fact that these all vary is less important to TCPM than
>the fact that none have anything to do with TCP.
>
>Yes, this is a problem for which a variety of solutions exist, and for
>which a coordinated solution would be useful. No, that itself is not
>justification for assuming TCP is the place to do this.

try this thought on for size:

"The need for congestion control is a problem for which a variety of solutions exist, and for which a coordinated solution would be useful. No, that itself is not justification for assuming TCP is the place to do this."

...but congestion control was put in TCP _anyway_. I still don't see what output behaviour algorithms have to do with on-the-wire header layout specifications, but that is all that is being discussed here.

L.

Saratoga: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[e-mail]> 


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm