[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?

[Ted Faber]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:40:16AM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> That's not what's implied above, IMO, e.g., by using the terms "full"
> and "carefully". Let's consider ma few of the SHOULDs in 1122 and
> consider whether we can negate them without catastrophe:

Your examples don't convince me.  I understand them fine, but I don't
agree that they're catastrophic interoperability problems.  Furthermore
I can think of situations in which a rational implementor would choose
to go against the quoted SHOULDs.

> > I think you're much better off debating the content of the design
> > decision than wether it violates some unenforcable boundary.
> 
> I've already pointed out that it is likely to be unfair w.r.t. TCPs that
> ACK every second packet all the time (excepting timeouts). Others seem
> intent on finding ways to make their preferred OS behave better so long
> as it's within the 'letter of the RFCs'; it is in that spirit that we
> need to be clear on the conditions where SHOULDs are OK to skip.

"Likely" doesn't seem sufficient for those who disagree with you.

But I don't have much to say about this particular choice, except that I
think it's in the letter of the law.  I expect that the performance
change is in the noise most of the time, but I'm not excited enough to
either argue about it or to go out and collect data.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070104/aca6e959/attachment.bin