IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsvwg] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-tsvwg-prsctp-00

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org> Wed, 02 July 2003 16:20 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 ESMTP id MAA29790 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:20:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkKx-00048Z-0t for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:20:03 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GK2ms015899 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:20:03 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkKv-000486-PJ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:20:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkKf-00047C-2b for tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:19:45 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29746 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkKc-0003Qc-00 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:19:42 -0400
Received: from gw.openss7.com ([142.179.199.224] ident=[tc/vSbsvNM4klImL9ekxZIVDVvtzfz+B]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkKb-0003QY-00 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:19:42 -0400
Received: from ns.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:SGqxsFGjV/o2nAKXnMVNojKPR9chNbzB@ns1.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.1]) by gw.openss7.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h62GJeX24535; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:19:40 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by ns.pigworks.openss7.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h62GJef23657; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:19:40 -0600
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:19:40 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: "Armando L. Caro Jr." <acaro@mail.eecis.udel.edu>
Cc: "Randall R. Stewart (home)" <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us>, "'tsvwg@ietf.org'" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-tsvwg-prsctp-00
Message-ID: <20030702101940.A23557@openss7.org>
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
References: <3F019E38.3020702@stewart.chicago.il.us> <Pine.GSO.4.33.0307011327590.12434-100000@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0307011327590.12434-100000@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu>; from acaro@mail.eecis.udel.edu on Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:33:58PM -0400
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by gw.openss7.com id h62GJeX24535
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Armando,

a) is the way to go.

I would surely like to see argument here as to why the supporters of b) or c)
think that they are necessary and limiting the number of SACKs is not.  For
example, in b) whare are not SACKs limited to every RTT?  Also, in c), where
are not SACKs limited to every other (current) SACK?

--brian

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003, Armando L. Caro Jr. wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
> 
> > 2) We have not a consensus either way on if we need to limit the number
> >      of forward TSN's.. I had put out a proposed text change... and asked
> >      for comments... Brian and Armando chimed in that no change was
> >      needed.. I am open to the group opinion... there are 3 basic things
> >      I have  heard of (onlist and off):
> >     a) No change
> >     b) only one FWD-TSN out per RTT (I lean towards this if we do
> >          anything)
> >     c) send a FWD-TSN every other SACK
> 
> If people feel that there is a need to reduce the number of FWD-TSNs, then
> I vote for option b. Note that in doing so, the timeliness of the FWD-TNSs
> may make PR-SCTP useless. If the forward path is lossy, then TSNs will get
> lost and their corresponding FWD-TSNs will get lost as well. Reducing the
> number of FWD-TSNs increases the number of RTTs needed to notify the peer
> that a TSN is being abandoned by the sender. Since the sender can bundle
> FWD-TSNs with outgoing data, I am not concerned about too many on the
> wire.
> 
> ~armando
> 
> 0--                                                  --0
> | Armando L. Caro Jr.      |  Protocol Engineering Lab |
> | www.cis.udel.edu/~acaro  |    University of Delaware |
> 0--                                                  --0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tsvwg mailing list
> tsvwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email