[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?

[Ted Faber]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:08:32PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> Granted, 'every two' is a SHOULD not a MUST, but that's the only place
> for Linux's behavior to be considered compliant. I don't see sufficient
> reason in "well, it makes *us* go faster" to warrant overriding SHOULD.

A TCP implementation that acknowledges every packet (and otherwise
implements all MUSTs in the relevant RFCs) is a (conditionally)
compliant implementation as defined by RFC1122.  I really don't see any
ambiguity there. (OK, RFC1122 could say that all conditionally and
unconditionally compliant implementations are compliant, which it
doesn't, so strictly speaking I should remove the parens around
"conditionally" above: "anal-retentive" is hyphenated.)

"Buggy," unlike "(un)?conditionally compliant," is not well defined, but
I don't think that the majority of implementors would agree that a
conditionally compliant TCP implementation is per se a buggy one.

It's a good way to argue about text rather than the design decision,
though.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070103/7a4129bf/attachment.bin