Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 09:51:14 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Performance Implications of Link Characteristics Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Performance Enhancing Proxies That Improve 
                          Link-Related Degradations
	Author(s)	: J. Border, M. Kojo, J. Griner, J. Montenegro,
                          Z. Shelby
	Filename	: draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt
	Pages		: 45
	Date		: 05-Apr-01
	
This document provides a high level overview of Performance Enhancing
Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance
caused by characteristics of specific link environments, for example,
in satellite, wireless WAN, and wireless LAN environments. Different
types of Performance Enhancing Proxies are described as well as the
mechanisms used to improve performance.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:47:21 +0100 (BST)

> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt

Lousy new title, IMO. What's an improved degradation?

'Performance-enhancing proxies intended to counter link-related
degradations' would sound better, but...

> Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance

...this is really about *TCP* performance.

'Performance-enhancing proxies intended to counter TCP
throughput degradations caused by link conditions' strikes me as
accurate, if wordy.

L.

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Markku Kojo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:24:27 +0300 (EET DST)

Hi Lloyd,

thanks for your comments.

> degradations' would sound better, but...

Yes, I think that's better, thanks. We changed the title per
comments we got from AD saying that "specific links" should
be addressed in the title. It was quite hard to come up with
a good&accurate but not too lenghty title.

> ...this is really about *TCP* performance.

Not entirely.  It's mostly on TCP, but appl. proxies are
also discussed.

> throughput degradations caused by link conditions' strikes me as

Right, too wordy. We had something similar and wordy but also
accurate as a candidate but we dumped it and decided to say
in the abstract that the emphasis is on TCP.

Anyway, we may still change the title, I think.

Thanks,

/Markku

---

From: Dr G Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:49:52 +0100

The new title in the ID certainly looks odd, it looks like the
wording of the title needs more work!

Many of the schemes only MITIGATE or reduce the effects of the under-lying
subnetworks, and do not counter them...

All the techniques are TCP-specific.

Gorry

-- 
------------------------------
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry

---

From: John Border <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:58:20 -0400

We were not entirely happy with the title either.  But, while the document
emphasizes TCP it does not exclusively deal with TCP.  Therefore, (in my
opinion) your first suggestion is better than the second.  And, I marginally
like "intended to counter" better than "that improve" so I could live with
another title change.  (We'll see who else rings in with an opinion.) 
However, I would prefer not to hold up submitting the document to the IESG so
maybe we can still submit it along with a note saying we will change the title
again (if the consensus is to do so)...

John