Re: [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-00.txt
Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> Thu, 23 November 2000 16:30 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA14065 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:30:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02239; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:25:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02209 for <tsvwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:25:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk (IDENT:exim@prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk [131.227.76.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA11858 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:25:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from regan.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.89.11]) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 13yzBc-0007gJ-00; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:25:24 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:25:24 +0000
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Sender: eep1lw@regan.ee.surrey.ac.uk
Reply-To: L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk
To: Reiner Ludwig <Reiner.Ludwig@Ericsson.com>
cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0011231502510.2707-100000@regan.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0011231618530.2707-100000@regan.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: speaking for none
X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
X-no-archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Lloyd Wood wrote: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Reiner Ludwig wrote: > > > I would very much appreciate to get some feedback on this mailing list > > concening draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-00.txt. > > wouldn't D-SACK information make Eifel flag negotiation redundant, > while also allowing simplifying timestamp handling somewhat? okay, now I reread section 2 of your draft where D_SACK is dismissed - but I'm having trouble following the logic for its dismissal. With SACK information about the receiver window, why does an extra segment retransmission matter? (This is separate to deciding to restore previous window sizes based on received ino in acks, be it Eifel bits or D-SACK.) L. <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/> _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-ei… Reiner Ludwig
- Re: [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tc… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tc… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tc… Reiner Ludwig