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

[Ted Faber]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:51:07PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Now who's not reading 1122?  The terms are defined there and there's
no indication of a "signing statement" requirement for conditionally
compliant implementations.  It's just a phrase that means "did all the
MUSTs and omitted one or more of the SHOULDs."  It's precise, unlike the
"buggy" word we can't agree on.

You may disagree with omitting delayed ACKs, but the RFCs allow it.

-- 
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/20070104/21c5ea18/attachment.bin