Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
> In particular why don’t we simply indicate that a lost packet can
> induce a delay of the fixed packet interval times the window size - 1,
> and so the widow size should be kept to a minimum, and leave it at
> that.
Agreed.
>> We have approved text from the transport experts now (in addition to
>> clearing WG LC). I do not want to open this draft back up for major
>> modifications that start talking about new ways to handle packets and
>> their affects on the drownstream network etc. This is not our area of
>> expertise, and we have already received approval from the experts for
>> the text that we have. Let’s stick with the approved text and make
>> clarifying modifications only.
I understand and agree.
Maybe clearly pointing at what text is involved would help.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
