Subject: [tana] FW: New Version Notification for draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation-01

From: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:36:04 -0800

Hello,

I change the introduction to explain better P2P protocol dynamics and its
effects.

I also introduced a terminology section to find out if we are all talking
about the same thing.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

------ Forwarded Message
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon,  3 Nov 2008 16:32:01 -0800 (PST)
To: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation-01

A new version of I-D, draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation-01.txt
has been successfuly submitted by Reinaldo Penno and posted to the IETF
repository.

Filename:  draft-penno-tana-app-practices-recommendation
Revision:  01
Title:   TANA Practices and Recommendations
Creation_date:  2008-11-03
WG ID:   Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 8

Abstract:
Applications routinely open multiple TCP connections.  For example,
P2P applications maintain connections to a number of different peers
while web browsers perform concurrent download from the same web
server.  Application designers pursue different goals when doing so:

 P2P apps need to maintain a well-connected mesh in the swarm while
web browsers mainly use multiple connections to parallelize requests
that involve application latency on the web server side.  But this
practice also has impacts to the host and the network as a whole. For
example, an application can obtain a larger fraction of the
bottleneck than if it had used fewer connections. Although capacity
is the most commonly considered bottleneck resource, middlebox state
table entries are also an important resource for an end system
communication.  

This documents clarifies the current practices of application design
and reasons behind them, and discusses the tradeoffs surrounding the
use of many concurrent TCP connections to one destination and/or to
different destinations. Other resource types may exist, and the
guidelines are expected to comprehensively discuss them.

Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 Error!
Reference source not found..

The IETF Secretariat.

------ End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
tana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tana

---

From: "Robb Topolski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:37:08 -0800

Thanks for those changes, Reinaldo!   --Robb

-- 
Robb Topolski ([email-masked])
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/
_______________________________________________
tana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tana