Subject: Re: section 4.2 of 2.5g/3g

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:42:21 +0200

Mark Allman wrote:

> So, Allison- Can you tell us what the status of the initial window
> I-D is?  And, if it is reasonable to edit the 2.5g/3g document to
> reflect what the new initial window RFC will say (since 2.5g/3g will
> -- hopefully -- enter the queue after the initial window ID)?

Allison,

I'm re-asking this question as I missed your answer.
The new revision, draft-ietf-tsvwg-initwin-02.txt
was announced last Monday.

tnx,

-gabriel

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:13:05 -0500

> > So, Allison- Can you tell us what the status of the initial
> > window I-D is?  And, if it is reasonable to edit the 2.5g/3g
> > document to reflect what the new initial window RFC will say
> > (since 2.5g/3g will -- hopefully -- enter the queue after the
> > initial window ID)?
> 
> Allison,
> 

My fault, sorry.  Allison, Aaron and I chatted in Minneapolis and I
should have followed up to the list.  Our consensus was that it
would be fine to make the references in the 2.5g/3g about the
initial congestion window normative.

So, my opinion is that the initial window section of 2.5g/3g should
be rewritten assuming that the initial congestion window is set by
equation (1) in the above I-D as a proposed standard.  I think that
will make the section easier to follow and less cumbersome on the
reader.  (Of course, if using a larger initial cwnd would be a Bad
Idea in 2.5g/3g networks then maybe the recommendation is *not* to
use it.  But, my feeling was that it would be useful based on the
current text.)

allman

--
Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/