Looking at the proposed text:
> > ---
> > Can you advise on some good wording which helps the reader understand
> > and is consistent with PEP.
> >
> > As a starter I suggest the following for Section 6:
> >
> > PLEASE DO SUGGEST CHANGES or alternate text!
> >
> > "The techniques proposed in this document do not seek to modify
> > the end to end semantics of the TCP packets exchanged between hosts.
> > They therefore do not inspect/modify any TCP or UDP payload data.
>
> I believe that header inspection for ACK bits qualifies as such,
> negating this.
Lloyd, surely the ACK bits are in the TCP header, not payload.
> And the semantics are being modified, albeit to a very
> limited extent; there's some impact on congestion control expectations
> etc.
>
I don't see an intended change to the meaning or significance of the
TCP header. Can you elaborate?
> > They also do not modify the port numbers or addresses of packets.
> > Many of the risks associated with other protocol enhancing measures
> > (e.g. local retransmissions, local acknowledgements, split TCP) do not
> > exist for such schemes. A more detailed description of the issues
> > in providing network protocol enhancement is described in [PEP-ID]
> > which also compares the various approaches."
>
> that much is fine.
>
> cheers,
>
> L.
>
> <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
-- ------------------------------ http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:26 EST