Subject: Re: Re: more LINK editing

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 11:16:15 -0500

Sounds good to me. Isn't engineering about those trades :-)

Marie-Jose
> 
> From: Phil Karn <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:18:52 -0700
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: more LINK editing
> 
> >I think the paragraph is fine (but other people may disagree) but the
> >delay numbers are not. My own design decision would be that the added
> >delay should be factored as either being low when compared to the end
> >to end delay, absolutely necessary so that while the throughput is
> >maintained the goodput does not go to zero and congestion piles up
> >elsewhere. Maybe just take the number away?
> 
> Okay, I've replaced that text with the following:
> 
>  Many subnetwork designers have opportunities to reduce the probability
>  of packet loss through FEC, ARQ and interleaving at the cost of
>  increased delay. TCP performance improves with decreasing loss but
>  worsens with increasing delay, so it is important to find the proper
>  balance through analysis and simulation.
> 
>