Re: [tcpm] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

Lars-

> we currently seem to be a bit stuck. The Google folks have gathered a
> lot of data, but at the moment it's still not quite clear - to me at
> least - what data-based argument would convince the WG to either
> permit IW10 and under what considerations, or which argument would
> convince us to not do it. 

OK.  Hard to argue with that.  But then ...

> I talked to a few folks after the meeting and made this suggestion:
> 
> * Google makes the raw data available. Yoshifumi requested this at the
>   mike, and Jerry said he'd see if this was possible. 
> 
> * We plan a TCPM interim in a few months, with the only topic being
>   IW10. 

... this seems a bit weird.  I.e., you can't envision data-based cases
either way and then you propose a whole meeting around trying to build
them. 

> * Folks (other than Google) who like IW10 crunch down the raw Google
>   data in an attempt to provide a convincing argument to allow it, and
>   under which conditions. (Obviously, folks can also generate their
>   own data, if they like.) 
> 
> * Folks sceptical about IW10 crunch down the Google data in an attempt
>   to find problematic cases that'd make the WG lean against
>   IW10. (Obviously, folks can also generate their own data, if they
>   like.) 
> 
> * We hold the interim with these folks presenting, and see what shakes
>   out. 
> 
> The idea here is that we really need a more diverse set of folks
> playing with IW10. Thoughts? 

It would be great if a more diverse set of folks was playing with this,
but haven't the Google folk answered the questions that have been posed
with their data?  So, what good is it to put that data in other people's
hands?  Do we think Google is botching the analysis or lying to us?  I'd
have framed this differently: it'd be nice to see a more diverse set of
folks playing with empirical data from a diverse set of vantage points.
Just getting more people to mess about in the data that Google has
analyzed in all requested ways (as far as I can tell) doesn't seem
particularly useful.  That is not to say that Google has drawn all
possible insight from their data.  But, it seems they have at least
gotten the high-order bits.  And, my hunch is that giving away data in
any sort of fine-grained way is not going to be easy.

And, further, this is all just fishing.  In other words, if we hand out
the data then we're hoping someone will be able to analyze it and get
some additional insight out of it.  I'd feel much better about this sort
of interim effort if there were at least a strawman set of Big Questions
that folks were going to go after.  And, further, if there are people
who will in fact put in the time to analyze the data in a non-glib
fashion. 

I have an entirely different proposal... Someone should start a list of
questions that give folks pause about IW=10.  Just make this an I-D that
is meant to move the process along and not meant to be published as an
RFC.  Let the proponents---or anyone with handy data that bears on
them---address these issues.  Maybe that resolves the question.  Maybe
it doesn't.  But, at least this (1) moves us beyond fuzzy notions of it
"not feeling right" to move to IW=10 by forcing folks to state possible
issues in concrete terms and (2) it provides a clear path to what the WG
wants to understand before taking some action on this proposal.  The
questions in this mythical I-D can then be annotated with pointers to
answers or possible answers.  I'll (begrudgingly) keep the list if folks
want.

allman