Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3390 (4583)

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

This is clearly a correction to the document.  The intent of the
authors and the WG was never to allow the initial window to be
higher than given in the document.  (It was hard enough to get folks
to accept an initial window of 2-4 segments.  It'd have been
impossible to get the community to agree to leave an explicit escape
hatch for larger values.)

This error also applies to RFC 2414 (where the text originated).

allman



> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3390,
> "Increasing TCP's Initial Window".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3390&eid=4583
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 1.
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    This increased initial window is optional: a TCP MAY start with a
>    larger initial window.  However, we expect that most general-purpose
>    TCP implementations would choose to use the larger initial congestion
>    window given in equation (1) above.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    This increased initial window is optional: a TCP MAY start with a
>    smaller initial window.  However, we expect that most general-purpose
>    TCP implementations would choose to use the larger initial congestion
>    window given in equation (1) above.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The MAY allows use of values smaller than this document allows, not larger.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC3390 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-initwin-04)
> --------------------------------------
> Title: Increasing TCP's Initial Window
> Publication Date    : October 2002
> Author(s): M. Allman, S. Floyd, C. Partridge
> Category: PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source: Transport Area Working Group
> Area: Transport
> Stream: IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG