[Iccrg] Re:

[Michael Welzl]

Hi,


> i do not think it is one of million ideas, since it is   unique and
> relevant under the assumption of lossy link. 

Fine - don't get me wrong, I have no problem with including it.
After all we do mention a number of solutions, and TCP Westwood
is quite well known anyway, I agree it deserves being mentioned.

(hm - I wonder if this kind of thinking turns the world of
scientific citation into a scale-free graph? I guess so  :)   )


> another relevant piece of work that you may want  cite  to improve
> this draft is the icnp08 paper:
> David A. Eckhardt, Peter Steenkiste: 
> Improving Wireless LAN Performance via Adaptive Local Error Control.
> 327-338

Thanks!

 
> which very clearly explains that you have to design a good wireless
> link so that losses not due to congestion should not be relevant
> (indeed this is the case in current 3G  systems obtained via ARQ).
> this is old stuff today, already documented in RFC 3819 - Advice for
> Internet Subnetwork Designers, by P. Karn.

In fact I'm surprised now that I really forgot to include RFC 3891 -
I really planned to refer to this one in this section, just forgot
about that. Thanks a lot!

Cheers,
Michael