On 20 Apr 2007, at 11:20, Ian McDonald wrote:
On 4/20/07, Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian, I would appreciate if in future you would not copy patch
descriptions over from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apart from the fact that I don't like it, this creates the wrong
idea among
people who have little or nothing to do with actual protocol
implementation
- it produces an impression of "let's talk about some
implementation bugs".
(But competent implementation feedback is welcome and solicited on
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Which is the more regrettable since you are right in raising this
point
as a general one: it is indeed a limitation of [RFC 3448, 4.6]
with regard
to non-realtime OSes. To clarify, the two main issues of this
limitation
are summarised below.
Yes I was a bit lazy in replying without changing the subject etc.
My apologies.
I'm refraining on replying further on these topics until I do some
experimentation which may be a while off.
Likewise - we have experiments in progress, and while we do have
stability problems with our TFRC implementation, I'm unconvinced the
behaviour is due to the reasons suggested. I'll report back when we
have more results.
Colin
-
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
