Re: Comments/question on no_feedback_timer

[Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

|  And the more I look at it the bigger my headache. I'm going to have to
|  start doing some of the TFRCbis rev02 stuff given the intertwining
|  with Faster Restart.
I take it that you are aware that the authors of the Faster Restart draft
are in the process of replacing the current version with an entirely different one
based on cwnd window validation. I'd check with the authors for their time plan.

Having rev02 in full length (and provided feedback), I found other issues in rev02.
There are a couple of things (such as receive-sets) which make implementation even more 
complex. Plus, the situation is like Faster-Restart: the draft is in a volatile state, 
some feedback (after recent IETF) seems to not have been addressed, the next rev is due 
in December, and only after the IETF meeting can some convergence/clarity be expected.

|  I'll probably post back patches from time to time that you can do what
|  you want with. (Ignore, integrate or somewhere in between)
I'd say, we put this up as a fork of the DCCP test tree? 

If you encounter issues or problems with the test tree and there are things 
            - outside the rev00 and rev02 discussion -
which can make the test tree better, then of course this goes into the test tree.

But due to the entanglements, I'd much prefer to keep rev00 and rev02 code separate
from each other.