Re: [tcpm] TCP zero window timeout?

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 30 August 2006 16:30 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GISx9-0006XA-TS; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:30:11 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GISx8-0006X5-O6 for; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:30:10 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GISx7-0006CV-Cm for; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:30:10 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7UGT1f8006044; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:29:00 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP zero window timeout?
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac
Cc: "Mahdavi, Jamshid" <>,, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>, Fernando Gont <>
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="===============0835720558=="

Ted Faber wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:19:19AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Ted Faber wrote:
>> ...
>>> I don't understand why you're against doing this in the app, but I don't
>>> think I understand your whole problem either.  I suggest writing a draft
>>> and giving us the full picture.
>> I'd rather see succinct answers to the alternatives suggested here that
>> motivate a TCP-level solution first.
> There are six people exchanging mail about a problem and a solution that
> don't seem well defined to me.

So far here's what I see:

	the proposers consider "application" to be the end-to-end
	user program, which may have a data format unavailable to
	the proxy

	TCP considers "application" to be the controlling program
	that manages the TCP connection, e.g., the user program
	at the endpoints, or the system inside the proxy

The system inside the proxy may not know what the user is doing at the
endpoints, but it DOES know whether its buffers are empty or full, and
whether the connection is making progress.

That system can easily decide when to shut connections down if progress
isn't being made.


If an ID described the details of the proxy system such that the above
were NOT possible, then that's fine.

If the ID makes assertions about "proxies out there" and how they
"might" work, then an ID is not productive.

> IMHO agreeing on what we're talking
> about will simplify that discussion.

Yes, but an ID isn't necessarily a step in that direction. A one-page
description of the problem is more productive and less work for
everyone. If one page is insufficient, a one page explanation of WHY one
page is insufficient seems a more useful step forward.


tcpm mailing list