We were not entirely happy with the title either. But, while the document
emphasizes TCP it does not exclusively deal with TCP. Therefore, (in my
opinion) your first suggestion is better than the second. And, I marginally
like "intended to counter" better than "that improve" so I could live with
another title change. (We'll see who else rings in with an opinion.)
However, I would prefer not to hold up submitting the document to the IESG so
maybe we can still submit it along with a note saying we will change the title
again (if the consensus is to do so)...
John
Lloyd Wood wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Performance Implications of Link Characteristics Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> > Title : Performance Enhancing Proxies That Improve
> > Link-Related Degradations
> > Author(s) : J. Border, M. Kojo, J. Griner, J. Montenegro,
> > Z. Shelby
> > Filename : draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt
>
> Lousy new title, IMO. What's an improved degradation?
>
> 'Performance-enhancing proxies intended to counter link-related
> degradations' would sound better, but...
>
> > This document provides a high level overview of Performance Enhancing
> > Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance
>
> ...this is really about *TCP* performance.
>
> 'Performance-enhancing proxies intended to counter TCP
> throughput degradations caused by link conditions' strikes me as
> accurate, if wordy.
>
> L.
>
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-pep-06.txt
>
> <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:26 EST