W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013


From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:48:46 -0400
Message-ID: <516ED26E.5010608@mti-systems.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
CC: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>, Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
On 4/16/2013 9:27 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 4/16/13 3:45 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
>> Part of what you inject is traditional L4 information (what was our
>> CWND before) which is much more interesting than a constant,
> Much more interesting.  That much we agree on.  Whether it is
> information or misinformation is the real question.

It's definitely misinformation given the dynamic nature of the
CWND variable in TCP.  This is not a path property like MTU that
can be thought of as relatively static, and it can change on short
timescales with high granularity.

Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:49:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC