Here are some questions about the plic minutes:
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/pilc/list/archive/0967.html
TCP over Wireless draft. The working group charter specifies that
PILC will produce a 'TCP over Wireless' RFC that is a meta list of
the existing PILC recommendations. This was reported in Adelaide as
being completed in October 1999 because Aaron had confused it with
the LTN draft. Actually, it requires some work. Gabe Montenegro has
volunteered to sync up with the WAP forum to see if we can build
this document on a work in progress that already exists in that
body. The document should be only 3 or 4 pages long and should go to
wg last call by January 2001. Gabe noted that there is currently no
buy in by the WAP forum as yet, he will attend a forum meeting in
September and try to resolve. Several members of WAP were in the
room and volunteered to assist if needed.
Is this WAP "work in progress" available for public inspection and
review? If not, would someone who can see it please abstract it and
post (anonymously if need be) please?
Does any WAP product use TCP at all?
Discussion on DoCoMo draft (draft-inamura-docomo-00.txt)
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-inamura-docomo-00.txt
Aaron noted that DoCoMo would like to publish this as informational
RFC, but we don't want to get in a mode of publishing RFCs each time
someone does this and requested input from the group.
I would certainly support doing anything that would encourage DoCoMo
to use end-to-end Internet protocols, and if they are as close as that
draft suggests, publishing it as an Information RFC might help them
provide TCP application services more easily.
A speaker noted that the recommendations are pretty generic and
suggested the working group use this as a starting point for the TCP
over wireless document, or as an appendix to this document. Aaron
suggested it might be necessary to take the simulation results out
in order to use this document for the TCP over wireless
document. Another speaker suggested using path MTU discovery instead
of fixing it at 1500. Question: Maybe your tcp stack in the Opnet
simulator is not the best TCP. Have you run this on real stacks,
rather than on a simulator. Imaura - yes they have, but no
published results.
Aaron noted that another alternative was that the DoCoMo would be
sent forth as informational, and would not be a recommendation. Tim
Shepard asked why would one want to disseminate this information?
Doesn't seem to make sense to have multiples of TCP/some link
technology. Is this advice on how to tune TCP for the handset?
Response from author: yes.
Comment: This shows that tcp stack works over wireless error prone links.
Comment: Doesn't think these results are any different from what a
modern TCP stack does anyway.
I think the TCP parameters and resulting behavior might be more
different than typical TCP stacks than whoever made that comment
might think. There seems to be a lack of understanding about the
parameters involved, and most if not all of the important ones are
at least touched on in the DoCoMo I-D and the documents it cites.
Gabe: This is similar to what was done in ecn document
What is the ecn document?
Question: What bandwidth was used in the simulations?
Imaura: 384kbs
Comment: Doesn't think this is realistic, since this is only the
rate if you are the only one in the cell. WAP is designed
to use slower links.
WAP is designed as if Moore's Law didn't exist.
Discussion on Long lived TCPs draft (draft-magret-pilc-lltcp-00.txt)
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-magret-pilc-lltcp-00.txt
Comment: this is probably not a good idea -- leads to ICMP flooding.
Is there any evidence to back this comment up? It seems that ICMP
traffic is specifically addressed by Magret and Yang.
Also, if there is a long outage you do want to go through slow start
again, because the network has changed. There are better link level
solutions to this problem.
Like what?
Thanks.
Cheers,
James