Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

At Tuesday 20/11/2007 18:10 -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
>Lloyd-
>
>> >I think this is a complete mis-characterization.  The answer is that
>> >congestion control is standardized because congestion control is
>> >about dealing with a *shared resource*.  We can do that control from
>> >a number of places in the stack and people have advocated for each of
>> >them at different points.  But, *where* that functionality exists is
>> >a second question after we establish that the functionality needs to
>> >exist and we need to standardize on it.  This persist business is not
>> >about controlling a shared resource, but about controlling a *local
>> >resource*.  Why should the community standardize local resource
>> >control?
>> 
>> The community standardised TCP window size advertisements. That's a
>> local resource control issue, surely?
>
>The community has not standardized TCP window size advertisements. 

okay, e.g. RFC3390 and RFC2581 are marked standards-_track_. But those implicitly suggest how you are expected to have local resources available (congestion/loss window buffer) to meet communication conventions for shared use for a shared goal - communication. (Hmm, indicating when one side should stop communicating doesn't really fit in with the shared goal of communication.)

At what point does a resource stop being shared and start being local (or vice versa)? It seems a bit fuzzy to me.

L. 


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