Quoting Eddie Kohler:
| Hi Gerrit, Ian,
|
| I am not sure I am completely following this discussion, but there is one
| point I wanted to bring up. DCCP senders DO have an estimate of the
| round-trip time even BEFORE the first feedback packet, namely from the
| Request-Response exchange. RFC 4342 senders and receivers can use the RTT
| measured by the core DCCP protocol. Reading over RFC 4342, this is
extremely
| not clear (sorry), but it was our intention. (Sally, this is right, yes?)
We
| will put together an erratum for the RFC Editor.
This is an experimental feature and also appears in
draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-00.txt,
section 4.2:
"If the sender does have a round trip sample when it is ready to
first send data (e.g., from the SYN exchange or from a previous
connection [RFC2140]), the initial transmit rate X is set to
W_init/R, and tld is set to the current time."
However, this is a draft, still under revision and subject to further change.
The Linux CCID 3 module is at present not even compliant with 3448 / 4342, and
we are having
enough work getting that done. There is therefore at the moment little point in
thinking
about what could be done and what should be done: what we are implementing is
RFC 4342/3448,
not more.
And if what is in the specification was not your intention, then this is
certainly not our problem!
You are suggesting and requesting features for which there is no support
currently in the RFCs
(see e.g. your earlier suggestion to re-introduce a socket option for packet
sizes).
What you are suggesting is helpful only for yourself as a writer of
specifications, but it is not
helpful for those who have to implement these specifications. If we give in to
suggestions which
are not documented by IETF-reviewed and IETF-approved standards documents, then
we end up doing
experimental work while the main target (a standards-compliant DCCP stack) is
not even finished.
Therefore, let me put it very clearly: I am against implementing anything which
is not stated in
RFCs 3448, RFC 4340, RFC 4341, and RFC 4342. About the rest we might talk when
the Linux implementation
matches these RFCs, but before we have accomplished that: please stop sending
feature requests or
annotations which are not part of the publicly and IETF-approved RFCs. For
these purposes, please
use [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead.
I am sure we can work out a constructive way of dealing with your interests as
well, but it is certainly
not via the avenue of implementing feature requests which you state without
contributing in work or in
funding.
Gerrit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
