Re: comments on draft-ietf-tcpsat-stand-mech-04.txt

[Vern Paxson <[e-mail]>]

> Sorry for lowering the signal-to-noise ratio unnecessarily.
> 
> I've been thinking in terms of increased initial congestion window
> proposals, so what I trying to say was "if the recommended initial cnwd is 2
> (or 3, or 4), we can ACK-per-packet in this window without doing
> ACK-per-packet in all situations". Sorry for not providing this context in
> my previous post.
> 
> I wasn't counting on the receiver knowing what initial cnwd the sender is
> using. I was just thinking that any increases in recommended initial cnwd
> could be used as a conservative approximation of how much additional ACKing
> we can do without causing problems.
> 
> At the very least, we could ACK the FIRST packet!

I strongly support this, and hope others agree that in this modest form,
ack-every-packet makes good sense.

Note: one of the arguments for cwnd=4 was that you then can retransmit
the via fast retransmission instead of timeout, if there's loss in the
initial window.  *This only works with ack-every-packet, which was assumed
when making this argument!*

		Vern