W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: Non-order processing in persistent connections

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:11:41 -0700
Message-Id: <9805191911.AA19544@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: Mark Stemm <stemm@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Cc: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>, koen@win.tue.nl, ZhouKang@cheerful.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/130

Clearly a good thing...  Congestion and loss recovery should clearly
be done on a host pair basis, and that existing TCPs don't is clearly

There are still several other things I suspect that SMUX does that your 
modified TCP does not (I couldn't access your web site this instant; got 
a DNS lookup failure on the site for your paper): SMUX can pack more than 
one fragment into a single packet.  As there are quite a few web objects 
(and HTTP protocol requests) that are quite small, this saves quite a 
few packets.  It also serves as a record marking protocol, which can be 
useful in many applications.

And it can be deployed alot faster than getting everyone to agree on fixing
their TCPs (which should be done in any case).

So I don't think this is one or the other; I'd certainly like to see
a better TCP (particularly one that didn't throw away data after a reset;
this causes us more than a little pain!).
				- Jim
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 12:21:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC