Harald - you sure you are not talking about IETF Mail Servers? Todd
-----Original Message----- >From: Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Aug 16, 2006 12:20 AM >To: Andrew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the >Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard >(draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz) > >Andrew Newton wrote: >>> 3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve >>> various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ? >> >> TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers >> (and lots of them, such as domain availability checks) UDP is better. >> Don't know what you mean by tricks, but the deflation is optional. >my congestion control alarm went off. > >after reviewing the document, it's still ringing. > >There's nothing in the document that says "if you want to send 4000 >requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down >your sending rate to that server". > >The word "retransmit" does not occur in the document. >The word "packet loss" does not occur in the document. >The word "congestion" does not occur in the document. > >4000-byte UDP packets will have 3x the drop rate of 1500-byte UDP >packets. So retransmissions are more likely than with DNS over the same >wire. I can't envision an implementation of this that wouldn't >retransmit. So guidance is needed. > >Using UDP is fine, but I regard this specification as incomplete. > > Harald > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >[email protected] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
