Hi, we're planning to have a TSVAREA meeting at the upcoming
IETF 81 meeting in Quebec City.
A draft agenda is at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/tsvarea.txt
Please let David and I know if there are any additional topics
we might need to plan for (tsv-...@tools.ietf.org).
--
Wes
On 6/23/2011 1:01 PM, Ian Barber wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com
mailto:p...@imatix.com wrote:
Sounds fun. Have you considered UDP? I've got that working over VTX,
doing things like broadcast connects (e.g. connect to any reachable
peer on
On 6/5/2011 8:18 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
Michael,
I am sometimes confused with the thinking of *some* TCPM work group
members esp., for such simple drafts(harmless drafts). Now, what if it
is a standards track document, would it be harmful to the internet? Or
if it is
Just commenting on the non-editorial portion:
On 6/4/2011 5:51 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
Why is this Informational? If it matters, it should be a Standards Track
document updating RFC 1122.
ANA I agree, it should have been a standards track document since it
clarifies the RFC
On 3/20/2011 9:28 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 21 Mar, 2011, at 12:18 am, da...@lang.hm wrote:
0) Buffering more than 1 second of data is always unacceptable.
what about satellite links? my understanding is that the four round
trips to geosync
This was a really strange (and very wrong) description of how the protocols
work. Correcting a few of the worst bits inline below ...
On 11/27/2010 9:42 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 01:38 +0700, Jérôme Prudent wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for the off topic (and the stupidity of the
Templin, Fred L wrote:
As such, I am now initiating a two week open review period
within the research group for technical and editorial review.
I will also solicit comments from a selected set of expert
reviewers to ensure a thorough review. The document version
offered for review is here:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 05:54:12AM -0600, zooko wrote:
http://obstcp.blogspot.com
Bah!
I say people should implement and use it anyway, despite IETF's
decision not to standardize it.
The subject line is misleading. The IETF did not reject Obfuscated TCP,
though it is true that many
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:19:46PM -0600, zooko wrote:
Dear Wesley Eddy:
I hate to be rude, but what is the point of your terminological
correction to the Subject line?
The relevant fact is that IETF is not going to standardize ObsTCP,
right?
I think this fact is important
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 04:37:54PM +, Will Morton wrote:
I have built the protocol based on TCP Vegas, but after reading those
references I clearly need to update it to use SACK and to ack-clock
except on rto, as you mention. My implementation of the protocol is
seemingly coming to
In the ICCRG's goal to foster a long-term congestion control
architecture for the Internet, its initial step is to understand all of
the current mechanisms in use. As an aid to this, the ICCRG is working
on a document that summarizes all of the congestion control mechanisms
and other guidance
101 - 111 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
