[Iccrg] Re: [tcpm] RFC5681: why halving FlightSize not cwnd?

[Mark Allman]

> Note that this was not intended to be my argument; my argument is that
> a TCP that doesn't "remember" such things (and 5681 does not) only
> knows about the 4 packets at the time of the loss, so it *thinks* the
> burden is 4.  This is clearly not optimal, and I would not argue that
> it is.  Perhaps I stated this poorly.

I agree with that.

allman



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/attachments/20120906/ed22f0ba/attachment.bin