> there are a multitude of papers posted for the buffer sizing workshop
>
> http://buffer-workshop.stanford.edu/papers/paper23.pdf was interesting.
Would be nice to get them to add ECN(sce) to the mix of there tests.
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:08 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > there are no
> > there are no minutes posted.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessa-81-some-congestion-experienced-00
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tcpm-some-congestion-experienced-in-tcp-00
>
> The above 2 decks are
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 2019, at 23:23, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 Dec, 2019, at 12:17 am, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are unfortunate problems with introducing new TCP options, in that
> >>> some overzealous firewalls block traffic which uses them. This
> there are no minutes posted.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessa-81-some-congestion-experienced-00
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tcpm-some-congestion-experienced-in-tcp-00
The above 2 decks are identical. Jonathan
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 6:38 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> I do hate watching y'all continually concede the "latency" point and
> have to argue on the "chosen ground" of single or dualq about
> long-running tcp flows.
I don’t think we’ve conceded that. It would be possible to run more tests on a
LAN
