Eric-
> As informational documents, part of their value should be more
> than pointing out existing RFCs - it should (in my opinion)
> address things that can improve TCP performance, as well as things
> we know people do and are potentially harmful (worst common
> practices?).
I agree. I don't think the research issues draft is pointing at
many RFCs.
Furthermore, I agree with you that TCP isn't the only thing we need
to look at. As you pointed out, we need to look at proxies,
application protocols, etc., etc., etc. My point in limiting the
document is not to discount these mechanisms as unneeded. My point
in limiting the scope is to get _something_ done. It would take a
very long time to get a document together that covered all things
that people can do to their satellite networks to make them work
better. I think the goal of this WG is to focus on TCP. I think
that more informational documents may be needed on ``other
mechanisms'' that help out. My point is to try to keep things
mostly focused on TCP in order to avoid getting bogged down in a
very large, hard to finish document.
allman
--- http://gigahertz.lerc.nasa.gov/~mallman/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:37 EST