Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
Jakob Heitz <jheitz@redback.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 07:13 UTC
Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iujlv-0008FF-QL; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:13:19 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iujlt-0008F9-O0 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:13:17 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iujlt-0008F1-B3 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:13:17 -0500
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iujlq-0002oB-Kj for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:13:17 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23013CA6C4F; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11044-01; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2ACECA6C4D; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4743DA89.6080300@redback.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:13 -0800
From: Jakob Heitz <jheitz@redback.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
References: <200711202201.WAA05926@cisco.com> <20071120231000.5A95C2F8228@lawyers.icir.org> <200711210546.FAA00566@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <200711210546.FAA00566@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tcpm@ietf.org
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
RFC2581 specifies behaviour of a host to protect the network. This is in the interest of all network users, thus subject to standardization. The problem of the subject line is a problem of one host, the solution to which is confined to that same host. The solution does not affect the network and requires no change in behaviour of any other host on the network. Thus it is not subject to standardization by a network standards body. The fact that a host chooses to implement TCP in something it calls a "kernel" is a private matter of that host and nothing that the rest of the network is the least bit interested in. Any host is free to fix this problem with something it might call a "socket option" or anything else without violating any IETF standards, nor requiring any blessing of the IETF. The IETF does not say that you must keep all TCP connections alive if you run out of resources, does it? Lloyd Wood wrote: > 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 tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Florian Weimer
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? speakeasy
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- RE: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Jakob Heitz
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- Summary of responses so far and proposal moving f… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… John Heffner
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Tom Petch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… John Heffner
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… weddy
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ethan Blanton
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ethan Blanton
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Erik Nordmark