>> 2) a table which identifies which recommended options are
>> currently available in commercial stacks with a comment section
>> containing any additional information about stack implementor's
>> plans to add them. (This might be better as an appendix since it
>> will certainly be dated very quickly. But even a dated snapshot is
>> better than pure hearsay.)
>
>I don't think I agree with this... I think the big problem is that
>the information is going to age too quickly. It seems to me that
>this might give a company that produces a TCP with the extensions
>helpful to satellites today an unfair advantage down the road. I'd
>really rather not open this can of worms...
The folks at PSC maintain such a table on a web page:
http://www.psc.edu/networking/perf_tune.html
Their focus is high-performance networking, but the feature set is applicable
to the satellite case too (SACK, RFC1323, buffers sizes, etc.).
Perhaps the draft could just point to this web page for the latest info on
implementations. This approach at least addresses the issue of the info in
the draft aging (as long as the URL doesn't change :-)
Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:31 EST