Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 21 November 2007 06:41 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IujGx-0007GP-3P; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:41:19 -0500
Received: from tcpm by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IujGv-0007GD-4N for; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:41:17 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IujGu-0007G5-KW for; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:41:16 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IujGu-0005VX-16 for; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:41:16 -0500
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAL6eXU4008139; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:40:26 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lloyd Wood <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1380347260=="

Lloyd Wood wrote:
> At Tuesday 20/11/2007 17:57 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 04:01:21PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> The community standardised TCP window size advertisements. That's a local resource control issue, surely?
>>>> That's something you have to tell the other end, i.e., it requires a
>>>> change to the protocol on the wire. This one can be implemented without
>>>> any change to the protocol at all - entirely at the app layer.
>>>   And I think the authors are positioning that there is a better place in
>>>   the architecture to solve this and that is in tcp. I think it is boiling
>>>   down to just a matter of opinions so far.. esp when you keep repeating
>>>   that it could be solved in the app layer (for as long as I recall!!)
>> First, the argument above is that this is like standardizing TCP window
>> advertisements.
>> Second, the original argument was that this wasn't solvable at the app
>> layer.
>> The rationale changes and the arguments persists. That's useful to note, IMO
> Joe,
> you appear to be confusing me with an author of the draft in question


I was not. I was explaining my response above.

> - and confusing my question about window advertisements (which indicate
> to the other end how it can usefully make use of what is essentially a
> local resource) for some change in rationale on behalf of the draft authors.

I was explaining that the authors have changed their rationale;
originally, it was needed in TCP because that was the only way to solve
the problem. I was not asserting that you were creating a new rationale
or changing one.

As to window advertisements, as I noted above, that is a property that
one end communicates to the other. It isn't of purely local impact.


tcpm mailing list