Re: [tcpm] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes

["Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <[e-mail]>]

Lars,
I have said these things before, again I'll bite.

Firstly, who should answer such a question (safety of choosing a
particular empirical value for IW) :  TCPM or ICCRG?. My book says,
ICCRG recommends such a thing to TCPM.

Secondly, sometimes we say that "the bar is too high for changing TCP",
if we have to go by that golden rule,  IW=10 is very aggressive change
without any knobs to control it, IMO.

-Anantha

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Lars Eggert
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:07 AM
To: Michael Welzl
Cc: tmrg; Mike Belshe; Matt Mathis; tcpm
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes

On 2010-11-11, at 19:00, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> The idea here is that we really need a more diverse set of folks
playing with IW10. Thoughts?
> 
> Isn't this what Experimental RFCs encourage?

We don't really need an RFC to specify how to set IW to 10 - that should
be pretty straightforward to implementors.

We also don't need an RFC for lab experiments with IW10.

My impression is that Google et al. would like to experiment with IW10
*on the Internet*, and the WG is asked whether that type of
experimentation is considered to be safe.

Lars
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm