Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 05 December 2005 15:13 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjI2N-0006Vh-SD; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:13:55 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjI2L-0006Vc-5F for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:13:54 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01116 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:13:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk ([139.133.204.82] helo=erg.abdn.ac.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EjINb-0005EC-NC for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:35:55 -0500
Received: from [139.133.207.161] (dhcp-207-161.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.207.161]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jB5FCqLa029414; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:12:52 GMT
Message-ID: <439458F0.7080509@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:12:48 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Aberdeen, UK
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02
References: <4390569C.6050004@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051202201002.048b5de8@localhost> <20051205145333.GB29457@grc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <20051205145333.GB29457@grc.nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
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>
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Wesley Eddy wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:37:16PM -0800, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
>>>>>/on a satellite/on a non-geostationary satellite/
>>>>>- All satellites orbit, but the vast majority used for telecoms take an
>>>>>orbit that is goeostationary.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC, this had been a contribution of (NASA's) Wesley Eddy. "Satellite" 
>>>>need not be a communications satellite, but could also be planetary body 
>>>>(i.e., a node operating from the Moon experiences periods of 
>>>>disconnection)
>>>
>>>- Yes and is also a rather bizarre illustration of the point, considering 
>>>the Path RTT >> "normal Internet MSL" ;-)
>>
>>I don't get your point. :-?
>>
> 
> 
> I don't either.  If the "normal Internet MSL" is 2 minutes, then the
> propagation-based RTT between the Earth and Moon of roughly 5.5 seconds
> is well within an MSL.
> 
> I actually think that changing the text to say "geostationary" would be
> an odd example, since from the ground it's rather difficult to go out of
> touch with one of these in comparison to other orbits.  The case of a
> polar orbit (for instance) where you can predict the amount of time when
> the satellite is below the horizon and the time when it'll come back up
> is a better example.  In this case, you can use a combination of UTO (to
> keep the connection alive) and retransmit-now (to kick the connection),
> to gain a little bit of efficiency, and simplify the application by
> letting it use TCP in comparison to CFDP or others.
> 
> -Wes
>  

OK, so the original text was:

    For example, an orbiting node on a satellite might
    experience disconnections due to line-of-sight blocking by other
    planetary bodies.  The disconnection periods of such a node may be
    easily computable from orbital mechanics.

And my original point, was perhaps not clear, but we now seem to have 
come full circle, and so let me try again:

If you think this is a good example of why UTO is useful (and I am not 
sure it really is such a good example), then I would have much prefered 
the I-D to have said something like "non-geostationary satellite" - to 
differentiate it from the more common form of satellite used to provide 
Internet services.

Gorry

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