IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?

Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com> Thu, 12 July 2007 23:51 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 1I98RJ-0002Eu-PU; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:51:17 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I98RG-0002En-DU for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:51:15 -0400
Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.175]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I98RC-0001Tj-1c for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:51:14 -0400
Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout05/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l6CNp3aq012080; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.150.186.170] (laptop170.icsi.berkeley.edu [192.150.186.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin07/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l6CNp2IB026490; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4685BEA0.8070705@mail.eecis.udel.edu>
References: <b1e79256f18fcb6f81ae417fde5ca646@mac.com> <46770412.8090307@psc.edu> <46ffa03042528d92a9ea2875e1764b19@mac.com> <4685BEA0.8070705@mail.eecis.udel.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <f1d5abad477f76e4a7c5afef0b1dadf9@mac.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] taking RFC 2861 (Congestion Window Validation) to Proposed Standard?
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:51:01 -0700
To: iyengar@cis.udel.edu
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Cc: Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>, Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>, tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>, Mark Handley <M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

> I'm generally happy enough with RFC 2861 to support it to go to 
> Proposed Standard. But, if we do not know more (or enough) about the 
> implications of CWV than we did when RFC2861 was published, on what 
> basis do we recommend that it change status?
>
> A show of hands by folks who know that it is used and has not caused 
> complaints would also be very useful, IMHO.

Yes, I agree.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email