Subject: [seamoby] [Issue] Should Nagle be used instead of 5.4.6?

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:32:22 -0700

Should Nagle be used instead of 5.4.6?
Submitter name: Pat Calhoun
Submitter email address: [email-masked] 
Date first submitted: June 22, 2001
Reference: 
Comment type: T
Priority: 2
Section: 5.4.6
Rationale/Explanation of issue: 

I have a question about the following requirement, which I brought up once, 
but now my objection is a little clearer, I think.

"5.4.6 The context transfer protocol MUST support the aggregation of
      multiple contexts."

The issue that I had previously with this one is that transport protocols
such as TCP and STCP commonly combine data sent to a common destination
if the data is ready within a very small window. This is known as
Nagle Algorithm (see section 2.3 of draft-ietf-aaa-transport-04.txt for
more info).

My point is that the transport can do this, and I see no reason why CT
needs to also handle this case.

I have another objection. In most cases, as we agree, latency introduced by
CT MUST be minimized. I would claim that most environments could easily 
handle each CT instance as a separate thread, and work independently. For
real-time OSes that do not have such rich features as threaded environments,
Nagle still provides batching at the transport layer.

Requested change: 

So, having said that, I believe that we should do one of a few options:
1. leave it as is
2. Remove the requirement
3. Re-word the requirement to state that if the transport selected does not
   support the Nagle algorithm, than this requirement holds.

---

From: Kulwinder Atwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:36:09 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:32 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [seamoby] [Issue] Should Nagle be used instead of 5.4.6?
> 
> 

I have had the same thoughts, but I wanted to wait for the outcome of the
transport selection process.  I would aggree with option 3.

- Kulwinder.