On 09/11/2022 09:44, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 9 Nov, 2022, at 11:10 am, Bob Briscoe wrote:
2/ Another question: Why 'and Signalling' in the title?
Other than the title and response to congestion signals, the charter doesn't
say anything about signalling itself.
If, say, there were more work
So, my thoughts are that I don't like the terms load or rate control,
because they can make it seem like the objective is to optimise the
loading or the rate - whereas the success of TCP/IP seems to rest on not
causing **excessive congesion** as a result of times of overload.
The difference
Adding some comments here. I'm playinh catch-up, so I may have comments
on some things that have been fixed, and missed others.
On 16/08/2018, 08:28, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Kent Watsen wrote:
You bring up an interesting point, it goes to the motivation for
wanting to
Thanks for those coments, which I cut, because I think they can now be turned
to text. You asked a question about one comment, see below:
GF:
Could the WG consider to also add the first two sentences to the security
considerations?
Bob:
Sorry, which two sentences?
These were the two
I think we agreed.
Gorry
On 16/02/2017 17:05, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Gorry,
On 2/16/2017 8:47 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
The point was that according to this spec (as currently written), an
off-path attacker can trivially inject an ICMPv6 message into the
traffic, which then causes a host
On 17/03/2014 14:49, Joe Touch wrote:
Spencer,
All good questions, but IMO the TSVDIR shouldn't be doing this analysis.
The authors should, in front of the transport area.
This needs more than a TSVDIR review.
Joe
On 3/17/2014 7:42 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I'm doing my best not to
