IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Tue, 13 December 2005 09:56 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 1Em6tw-0002fA-Pd; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 04:56:52 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Em6tv-0002eV-F2 for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 04:56:51 -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 EAA28562 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 04:55:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from server.frh.utn.edu.ar ([170.210.17.146] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Em6us-0000qy-0w for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 04:57:51 -0500
Received: (qmail 10094 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0000
Received: from ftp.frh.utn.edu.ar (HELO fgont.gont.com.ar) (gont-fernando@170.210.17.150) by server.frh.utn.edu.ar with SMTP; 13 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0000
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20051213012717.048f1608@localhost>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:27:48 -0800
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02
In-Reply-To: <439D7400.20902@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <BF9BD734.4234%gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051201035418.0323fc48@localhost> <4390569C.6050004@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051202201002.048b5de8@localhost> <20051208222808.GB22920@hut.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20051208164304.041ead70@localhost> <20051209182531.GC1177@hut.isi.edu> <439D7400.20902@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>
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>
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

At 04:58 a.m. 12/12/2005, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

>I agree - my concern was application of a SMALLER value (from the remote 
>end) than currently defined by standard mechanism - and the impact this 
>could have on an unsuspecting application.

I understand. And for that reason it's that the lower limit for the UTO 
should be set correctly.

Of the top of my head, I realize that maybe the current draft does not 
mention which value should be the minimum we should use for the lower 
limit, though.

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org






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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email