Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-01.txt

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:11:15 -0400

Folks-

I have made a pass at this I-D at Aaron's request.  The following
are my major comments on the draft.  (Nits are being sent to the
authors directly).  My understanding is that Aaron would like a
discussion on this document in general -- i.e., add any problems I
might have overlooked, or tell me I'm out to lunch.  I would like
some feedback from the authors or others specifically on the
following points.

Section 3.1.1:

  * You say the "link BDP tends to large".  What does this mean?  It
    would be nice to define large.  For instance, a possible
    definition might be that a BDP is large if it requires window
    scaling/timestamps for a connection to fully utilize the
    available bandwidth.  Are these wireless links that big?

Section 3.1.2:
    
  * It is not clear to me why your networks require a tighter rule
    regarding the initial window that the general spec (RFC 2581).
    In other words, why do you declare an initial window of 2
    segments a MUST when the standard allows for the use of 1 or 2
    segment?  I think your recommendation should be a SHOULD (i.e.,
    use 2 segments unless you have a really good reason not to).

  * Your discussion of the larger initial window when gateways are
    deployed is confusing.  I assume you are advocating using a
    larger intial window on the non-Internet side of the gateway,
    right?  This bit of text needs reworked.  Also, I would suggest
    adding a reference to the PILC PEP document in there somewhere.

Section 3.2:

  * I did not really understand the point of outlining a bunch of
    different network types in the document.  I suggest either (a)
    nuking this section or (b) motivating it a lot better.

Section 4:

  * Limited Transmit: Why not recommend this?  The SLOW document
    does.  It seems like the mechanism is mostly benign and may help
    you, so why not?  There very well could be a good explanation,
    but I guess I'd like to see it in the document since it is
    curious that you wouldn't recommend a standards track mechanism.

I hope these are helpful!

allman

---
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/