Re: [Tsvwg] Input for draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt

[Reiner Ludwig <[e-mail]>]

At 16:35 01.12.99 , Mark Allman wrote:
>However, I see no reason to block this document on the possibility
>of getting evidence of a new and better RTO estimator at some point
>in the future.

This is not my intention. By now, I understand that the purpose of the I-D 
is to simply document the "de facto". This was not clear to me in the 
beginning. I now agree that it is a good idea to have this I-D become a 
proposed standard, and I appreciate your, Vern's and the other involved 
people's efforts.

Furthermore, I certainly agree that any alternative for estimating the RTO 
will need to be *very* thoroughly verified before someone even thinks about 
feeding it into the IETF. When I started this thread (posting the pointer 
to our paper), I wanted to make people aware of some problems we found with 
the current "de facto" RTO. My intention was *not* to promote a new RTO 
that at this point has *not* been thoroughly verified.

In my past mails, I'm merely questioning what the "de facto" for the 
RTO-MIN really is.

///Reiner