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

[Joe Touch]

Ted Faber wrote:
> 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.)

Conditional compliance should come with a statement of the conditions.
Absent that, it's just buggy.

Reasonable conditions do not include "it makes *us* go faster"; the
include things like "this implementation is to be deployed in a limited
environment that is overwhelmingly satellite-oriented" - e.g., if
DirectPC were to use a variant for proxy traffic to its home routers
that overrode SHOULDs for those reasons, that'd be non-buggy.

Joe

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070103/8d345fa3/signature.bin