Thank you Ted. Those address my concerns.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/9/18 9:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
I got a bit wound up about not making the three changes that Joel called
out in the updated session signal comment, and insisted on not making
the changes because they didn't seem that important. I had
I got a bit wound up about not making the three changes that Joel called out in
the updated session signal comment, and insisted on not making the changes
because they didn't seem that important. I had a bit more private
conversation with Joel about it, and after some reflection decided that
I will try to elaborate on the problems below.
Joel
On 7/5/18 6:28 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
The text also says that it's fine to blindly forward DSO messages if the
middlebox isn't modifying the stream, e.g. in a NAT. It really is
quite clear on that point. The case where it's bad to blindly
The text also says that it's fine to blindly forward DSO messages if the
middlebox isn't modifying the stream, e.g. in a NAT. It really is quite
clear on that point. The case where it's bad to blindly forward DSO
messages is when there is no stream that's the same stream on both sides of
the
In line. The general point is that the document should be clear to
readers who understand the space but do not live it at the detail of
those who authored it.
Joel
On 7/5/18 6:13 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Joel, it's immaterial whether the DSO engine responds in time or not.
If it responds in
Joel, it's immaterial whether the DSO engine responds in time or not. If
it responds in time, the ack and the response will be combined; if it does
not, then Nagle's algorithm will ensure that the ack goes out, and the
response will go out in a later packet. Either outcome is fine. There
is
