TCPSAT Minutes, December 8, 1997, Washington, DC
Reported by Dan Glover ([email protected])
Charts and documents are available from the TCPSAT Web page at
http://tcpsat.lerc.nasa.gov/tcpsat/
Aaron Falk opened the meeting at 9:30am and reviewed the agenda which was
accepted without comments. Aaron asked for a show of hands on how many
attendees were on the mailing list and estimated about 80% were.
Aaron reviewed the status of the working group. He stated his intention to
forward the standard mechanisms draft for consideration as an informational
RFC if consensus was reached. The research issues draft was not ready yet,
so he presented a schedule change showing a meeting of the working group at
the next IETF meeting. There was no comment on the proposed schedule that
Aaron interpreted as general agreement.
Mark Allman gave a presentation on the standard mechanisms draft. He
stated that he intended to provide a pointer to the PSC implementations
information Web page, but did not intend to include details on specific
implementations in the draft.
Luis Sanchez commented that security issues could be better addressed and
agreed to write a paragraph on IP security issues related to TCP over
satellite. A question on UDP was dismissed as out-of-scope by Aaron. A
question on LEO satellites not having high delay*bandwidth was answered by
pointing out that the draft's list of satellite characteristics was a
general list and that any particular satellite would have a subset of those
characteristics. There was a comment that asymmetric bandwidth cases did
not appear to be addressed in detail.
There was a comment that bigger segments did not make sense in a high error
environment. Questions were raised about Path MTU Discovery, that there
had been past problems with routers that didn't support it, that some
firewalls do not support it, that some implementations are broken over GRE
tunnels, and that the discovery process could add significant time to a
transmission.
Aaron asked if there was general consensus that the standard mechanisms
draft should be forwarded for consideration as an informational RFC after
some modification to the Path MTU Discovery section. There was a general
nodding of heads and no dissent was noted.
Mark then gave a presentation on the research issues draft. He pointed out
that the first draft of the document is incomplete. He asked for
volunteers to help write the sections that have already been identified or
any new sections using the same format as in the present draft.
Someone volunteered to write up the benefits of header compression for
asymmetric channels. Comments were made that on asymmetric channels TCP
rate limiting is needed to avoid bursts for byte counting, and that ACKs
could be lost on uplink.
Aaron asked for general comments on the state of the research draft. Mark
complained that the draft is nowhere near complete.
TCP for Transactions was discussed at some length. Some felt that the
benefits of T/TCP were outweighed by the complexity of implementation.
Someone commented that Web servers would benefit from T/TCP, but was
answered by another comment that HTTP 1.1 brings the same benefits as
persistant connections by using one connection in place of many. A comment
was made that denial of service using T/TCP would make it unsuitable for
Web servers. There was discussion of the pros and cons of leaving T/TCP in
the draft.
Comments were made that NACK and SCPS needed to be added to the list of
research issues in the draft and that Van Jacobson's comments about byte
counting at the last TCPSAT meeting should be addressed in the draft.
Aaron closed the meeting. The roster sheet had only made it around about
halfway by this point, so Aaron urged attendees to sign the blue sheet on
their way out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:34 EST