[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?
faber at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 4 13:17:41 PST 2007
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.
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
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070104/aca6e959/attachment.bin
More information about the end2end-interest