Re: [tcpm] alternate IW proposal

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 19 November 2010 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 8E3A03A6887 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:53:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 kir9uVGd6a8R for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:53:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1873A672F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:53:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (jack.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.73]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oAJ3sEmS027836; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (www.obdev.at [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD85B25599E6; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:54:14 -0500 (EST)
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CE5D135.4060109@isi.edu>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Who You Are
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma62694-1"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:54:14 -0500
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20101119035414.AD85B25599E6@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] alternate IW proposal
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 03:53:29 -0000

Two quick things ...

> If you care that much about latency, keep connections open and reuse
> them.

This takes a cooperative effort between two hosts and so is not always
possible from the perspective of one host.

> Finally, I claim that this cannot possibly matter to the web. If it
> did, people wouldn't design web pages using bloated images and flash;
> they'd use simple HTML that would load and render faster.

More likely its that people value the design of their web pages over the
performance benefits of stripping to bare bones.  That is a preference
on their part.  But, it doesn't mean they wouldn't also like to see
performance gains, as well.

OK, three things... IW10 can save more than 1RTT.

allman