Tom and Enrique,
A while ago, we decided to split the output of this working group into two
separate drafts, one to address standards and best practices and one to
address research issues for improving TCP performance. The motivation was
to avoid confusing someone looking for information about how best to use
TCP today over satellites. If the research ideas were in the same document
as the recommendations, someone might confuse the two and try to do
something that perhaps they shouldn't.
What we have is one document that some might describe as a no-brainer (the
standard mechanisms draft) and another that will discuss specific issues
and some possible solutions, some of which may ultimately turn out to be
wrong or useless or unworkable (but that's research). The second draft is
still still being fleshed out, half of it is still just an outline. If you
have some research to report on, please post details to the list and we can
work it in.
I hope that the standard mechanisms draft will help to educate consumers as
to what to ask for from their TCP implementors and encourage implementors
to include options beneficial to satellites in their stacks.
We are not going to be advocating any particular research at this point,
just describing the issues and pointing to possible avenues for research.
As I understand the scope of this working group, we are charged with
defining the issues. If we identify something that requires further
action, then we would probably have to form a follow-on working group or
get a new charter to address that. I think you raise a valid point and I
would agree that if we find something that is an obvious win for everyone
that we should do our part to support it and help shepherd it through the
IETF process. We can recommend "well understood protocol changes"
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tcpsat-charter.html).
I believe the standard mechanisms draft fulfills a useful purpose and I
think we did the right thing in spliting the two documents. TCPSAT is not
chartered to develop a new TCP and, when the working group is finished, it
will not have solved all problems, but we will have taken the logical first
step.
R/
Dan
At 10:33 PM 12/9/97 -0500, you (Lynch, Tom) wrote:
>After careful review of the Draft "Enhancing TCP over Satellite Channels
>using Standard Mechanisms (v01)" we came to the conclusion that the
>document seems to lack a goal/focus. What are we trying to achieve?
>Now that we have identified the factors that limit performance in a
>satellite based network, and identified different approaches to mitigate
>some of these problems, will any specific recommendations be made to
>change the requirements to the TCP protocol? Are we going to suggest
>that some of the enhancements that are currently in most current
>releases (such as Fast Retransmit, Windows scaling) be upgraded to
>Required Status? Perhaps it is time to revisit the goals of the group.
>Otherwise this document runs the risk of being short lived and ignored.
>
>
>Thomas J Lynch
>AT&T Laboratories
>[email protected]
>
>Dr. Enrique G. Cuevas
>Satellite Communications
>International Network Technology Development
>AT&T Laboratories
>[email protected]
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:34 EST