Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] Spurious RTOs and SCTP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:12:02 +0200

> Would it be feasible to define a single document which
> specified a set of transport neutral terms that would be
> compatible with TCP, TCP with SACKs, SCTP and DCP (and the
> mapping of those terms to each congestion controlling
> transport protocol)?
> 
> That way new algorithms can be proposed once, and the
> mapping to each transport would be known.

That may turn out to be difficult. To give an example, TCP DSACK and SCTP dupTSN are not exactly the same. You don't know if the other TCP end point implements DSACK, so one cannot draw very strong conclusions from the lack of DSACK blocks. In SCTP, dupTSNs is mandatory (right?), so stronger algorithms can probably be implemented on top of that.

- Pasi
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:00:44 -0800 (PST)

At the Triggers for Transport BoF at IETF 56, Allison Mankin
asked Carl Williams and I to propose a charter which included
"link up" notification, and a suggested response function.

Of course, the response function (at this time) must be
specified for at least two or three transports.

I'm just pointing out that we'd ALSO like to see a single
document with these transport mechanisms, because it would make
TRIGTRAN a HECKUVA lot easier for us to knock out.

And I believe Pasi about a single specification being difficult
- the problem is, having a bunch of per-transport specifications
just spreads the work around for anyone who's trying to work on
transport-independent mechanisms...

Spencer, who believes Mark Allman when Mark says it's
unfortunate that we didn't get traction with ECM...

--- [email-masked] wrote:
> That may turn out to be difficult. To give an example, TCP
> DSACK and SCTP dupTSN are not exactly the same. You don't know
> if the other TCP end point implements DSACK, so one cannot
> draw very strong conclusions from the lack of DSACK blocks. In
> SCTP, dupTSNs is mandatory (right?), so stronger algorithms
> can probably be implemented on top of that.
> 
> - Pasi

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg