Christian Hopps writes:
> >> It might be obvious to you, but it might not be obvious to the person
> >> doing the actual implementations. I always consider it a good idea to
> >> point out pitfalls and cases where implementor should be vary to the
> >> implementor and not to assume that implementor
Hi Tero,
Let’s keep things simple here at this point in the process, and also match the
results we have already verified with running code.
We can add more text that talks directly about how the reorder widnow size
should be kept as small as possible (it should NEVER be 1000 packets, I’m not
s
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.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Aug 17, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi Tero,
>
I also need to point out that we are only talking about the case where the
implementation doesn’t use a timer to timeout missing packets. We specifically
added text highlighting that implementations are free to timeout missing
packets much earlier if they so choose. Perhaps we should also highli
Christian Hopps writes:
> Let’s keep things simple here at this point in the process, and also
> match the results we have already verified with running code.
In real production use over internet or in the lab between two test
machines (or inside one datacenter between machines there)?
> We can
Christian Hopps writes:
> 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.
As the window size is configured by the adminstrator an
Christian Hopps writes:
> I also need to point out that we are only talking about the case
> where the implementation doesn’t use a timer to timeout missing
> packets. We specifically added text highlighting that
> implementations are free to timeout missing packets much earlier if
> they so choose
Tero Kivinen writes:
Christian Hopps writes:
I also need to point out that we are only talking about the case
where the implementation doesn’t use a timer to timeout missing
packets. We specifically added text highlighting that
implementations are free to timeout missing packets much earlier
Christian Hopps 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
