From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eddie Kohler Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:33:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] DCCP: Fix up t_nom - FOLLOW-UP Message-Id: <45A7B849.5080501@cs.ucla.edu> List-Id: References: <200701101021.38920@strip-the-willow> In-Reply-To: <200701101021.38920@strip-the-willow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org > | For what it's worth, it's as close to in the RFC as it can get without a > | revision. The authors of the RFC agree that we meant the initial > | Request-Response RTT to be usable as an initial RTT estimate; the > | working group agreed; errata has been sent. > So we are RFC-compliant for the moment. One point which remains unresolved is, > the above is about RTTs, but what about the initial sending rate of 1 packet > per second, which implies an initial t_ipi of 1 second? "Therefore, in contrast to [RFC3448], the initial CCID 3 sending rate is allowed to be at least two packets per RTT, and at most four packets per RTT, depending on the packet size. ..." [RFC4342, Sec 5] Since CCID3 always has an estimate of the round trip time when it sends packets, there is no such thing as an initial sending rate of 1 packet per second. The initial sending rate, after the Response arrives (thus providing an initial estimate of the round trip time), is 2-4 packets per RTT, depending on s. Eddie