Quoting Ian McDonald: | > Can understand that - that is partly why I suggested to wait a little, and see if and the | > two drafts stabilise. If there were updates to 4342 then I would also be all for tracking | > them. However, 4342 is written in such a clever way that updates of 3448 do not apply. | > I am in support of the 3448 draft changes that are in the kernel so far, since to my | > understanding they improve the performance over an `orthodox' 4342; the point being that | > no one cares how orthodox the implementation is when the performance is awful. | > | Unfortunately I can't really wait too long as it is for my thesis. | That's OK as I can reference which draft I use. It has been suggested | for CCID3.bis (and agreed) that CCID3 should track TFRC.
I have enquired about the status of rfc3448bis - the situation at the moment seems that there are a lot of changes in rfc3448bis which have not gone through community review yet; there are further edits/changes which need to be addressed (probably in the next revision for the December IETF meeting); and only after this has been done can some stabilisation be expected. Until then there are probably going to be many changes. It seems that Faster Restart is being rewritten into a new algorithm, using something like TCP cwnd validation. For me this all looks very experimental, but it can be useful to experiment. Therefore, if you wanted to, the offer is there to put all this stuff as a fork of the test tree. | > | If you do have a list of them it would be great. I see quite a few | > | comments about bis in the code. | > I don't have a list at present, need to go through the works. Will post at a later point. | > | Don't worry too much about this, as this is my research so don't want | to waste your time :-) Thanks - much appreciated, this can take a little time. - 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
