Re: Putting ESRO (RFC-2188) on the IETF standards track

[Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>]

>>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:27:12 PST, Vern Paxson <vern@ee.lbl.gov> said:

  >> Policies and Algorithms for retransmission timers in ESRO were meant
  >> to be added to the protocol after gaining real world experience with
  >> it. Same way that it happened for TCP.

  Vern> The way it happened with TCP is that the network collapsed.  I think we'd
  Vern> all prefer not to have that happen again.

But had it not been for widespread publication of TCP, we would not
have had a network at all.

Here, we are talking about a brand new topic for the network and a
brand new Informational RFC (or entry at lowest level of the Standards
Track). Further, the author/editor himself is very sensitive to the
problems that you are mentioning.

  >> The ESRO 3-Way hand shake state tables are essentially same as the
  >> connection establishment phase of TCP. Therefore some of the
  >> experience of Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit and
  >> Fast Recovery Algorithms from TCP are applicable.

  Vern> Those algorithms have nothing to do with TCP's 3-way handshake.

My last sentence of the paragraph that you quoted from me was:

  >> However, not all of
  >> the established TCP experience is relevant.

Why did you snip that paragraph?

What aspect of the TCP experience do you think is relevant here?

  Vern> My concern is that the development of ESRO did not incorporate much of
  Vern> the hard-won experiences of TCP.  The fact that the document does not
  Vern> refer to TCP in any form is inauspicious in this regard.

Then, can you please help us make it better.

I am not sure if I understand you.

What were you expecting?

Do you have any specific comments in that regard?


...Mohsen