revised pilc-2.5g3g and note to the list

Folks,

Great new, the 2.5G/3G draft was approved by the IESG!
The feedback was quite favorable, as they asked for small
and friendly changes only. The only blocking item was
the revised initwin document which has us waiting
for its promotion to proposed standard. It is now RFC 3390.

I've produced a new version incorporating comments from
the AD (Allison), as well as some minor ones from WG members.
I've submitted this new version (rev 12) so you should see the
announcement in a few days. This version is now ready to go to
the RFC editor.

The changes from rev 11 rev 12 are:

---------------------------------------------------------
Updated/fixed these references:
    rev-11 numbering: [7], [8], [10], [45], [46], [47], [58].
    rev-12 numbering: [7], [8], [10], [45], [47], [48], [59].
    and added new reference [46] (RFC2488)

Deleted mention of "transport gateway" in the security section
this was a remnant from when we talked about these devices, but
we got rid and forgot to elide this comment.

Update ref [8] with "increasing initial window" new RFC number 3390.
Use this number in section 4.10 and delete section 7.
Also, in section 4.2 change this:

    Senders
    can avoid this by using a larger initial window.   At the time of
    this writing, an increased initial window setting of two segments is
    already approved [3], and and a further increase up to four segments
    (not to exceed roughly 4 KB) has been proposed to become a standards
    track RFC [8].

to this:

    Senders
    can avoid this by using a larger initial window of
    up to four segments
    (not to exceed roughly 4 KB) [8].

These changes related to "Initial Windows" becoming an RFC
had been documented in the IANA considerations section.

(Reiner's suggestion) Add mention of 2488 (satellite) in the intro.
After first mention of ref [45] (experimental satellite mechanisms),
added this reference to [46] (standards track satellite mechanisms):

    Accordingly, interested readers might find related and
    potentially relevant issues discussed in RFC2488 [46].

(Jayshree's suggestion) Added text to the effect that country names when
mentioning W-CDMA and cdma2000 are just examples of places where
they have been adopted.

(Rodrigo Garces' suggestion) in section 2.1 on Latency, change this:

    The latency of 2.5G/3G links is high mostly due to the extensive
    processing required at the physical layer of those networks, e.g.,
    for FEC and interleaving, and due to transmission delays in the radio
    access network [55].

To this:

    The latency of 2.5G/3G links is high mostly due to the extensive
    processing required at the physical layer of those networks, e.g.,
    for FEC and interleaving, and due to transmission delays in the radio
    access network [55] (including link-level retransmissions).

(Rodrigo Garces suggests) Change:
"One common set is warranted,
because 2.5G and 3G networks share similar challenges to TCP
performance (see  Section 2)."

To:
"Since both generations of wireless technologies exhibit
similar challenges to TCP performance (see Section 2),
one common set is warranted."

(Rodrigo Garces suggests) Change "Wideband CDMA" for "W-CDMA" after it
appears the first time...

(Per AD and Chairs) Ended the debate about whether EDGE is a 3G technology
     by eliding all mention of it in the draft.

(Per AD) Modified abstract.

(Per AD) Modified IANA section.

(Per AD) Deleted 2nd mention of Eifel.

(Per AD) Added more caveats to the effect that the
technologies mentioned are far from being a complete
list.

Several typos fixed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

-gabriel

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/