[tcpm] Statement in security section of RFC2581
Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> Mon, 23 February 2009 23:41 UTC
Return-Path: <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4093128C22C for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:41:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yes2p8LFfXU0 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from swin.edu.au (gpo4.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B40728C209 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [136.186.229.240] ([136.186.229.240]) by swin.edu.au (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1NNg6DM001472 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:42:06 +1100
From: Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: University of Innsbruck
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:41:53 +1100
Message-Id: <1235432513.3655.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [tcpm] Statement in security section of RFC2581
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:41:50 -0000
Hi, I hope this isn't a very stupid question... but I'm confused about this statement from RFC 2581, which is also in draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-04.txt (apparently the last version? I pulled it off Mark's webpage, as it's not listed on the TCPM charter page, just in the list of goals and milestones) -- Causing two congestion control events back-to-back will often cut ssthresh to its minimum value of 2*SMSS, causing the connection to immediately enter the slower-performing congestion avoidance phase. -- Why? It seems to me that two cc. events should just cause sshtresh to be quartered... Cheers, Michael
- [tcpm] Statement in security section of RFC2581 Michael Welzl