Re: [TERNLI] Notes from tonight's ad hoc

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

> I'm not sure how clear-cut it is.  E.g..  a path change might imply a
> likelihood of a significant capacity and latency change.  A capacity
> change due only to modulation change would likely affect the latency
> less drammatically, I would think.  On the "other other" hand, the
> system could generate two indicators on a path change :P.

Right... but, the transport isn't going to be able to figure all this
out any more than the link-layer.

I guess I see the signals as either ...

  + Giving the transport something it can directly use.  E.g., the
    available bandwidth just increased from 2Mbps to 11Mbps.  E.g.,
    the flow experienced congestion.  E.g., some probability of the
    fraction of losses due to corruption.

    These are different from less-directly-useful information like
    "switched to a new AP" or "am now using a different coding /
    modulation scheme" which are much less directly applicable. 

  + Giving a generic signal that *something* has changed and it likely
    matters and so the transport should re-init itself (e.g., forget the
    SRTT, RTTVAR, cwnd, ssthresh, MTU value, etc.).

allman