IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Vern Paxson <vern@ee.lbl.gov> Wed, 24 November 1999 23:42 UTC

Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov (daffy.ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14117 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:42:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA18716; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199911242342.PAA18716@daffy.ee.lbl.gov>
To: Reiner Ludwig <Reiner.Ludwig@eed.ericsson.se>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Input for draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:19:54 PST.
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:42:21 -0800
From: Vern Paxson <vern@ee.lbl.gov>

> Why would we (TSVWG) want to do that when we know that the current TCP
> retransmission timer as documented by draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt has some
> major problems, e.g., those discussed in our paper?

Same reason that RFC 2581 (Proposed Standard) doesn't address some of the
fast recovery problems that, e.g., RFC 2582 (Experimental) does.  The scope
of draft-paxson-tcp-rto-00.txt is to document the de facto standard, not
to refine it.

		Vern

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email