> 1.It would be interesting to know how many independent
> TCP implementations exist, and the rough proportions in
> which they are represented.
Also, it would be very interesting (but hard to determine!) how much
traffic each implementation contributes. This would let you gauge to
what degree a widespread PC implementation actually influences Internet
One idea floating around is having as one of the group's products a Web
page that would have this sort of info. Something along the lines of
which Jamshid Mahdavi et al put together. There are IETF issues regarding
a WG providing such a page which Allison & Allyn are looking into. We
should have something more concrete to say about this at the BOF.
> 2. It used to be the case that there were bugs in common implementations
> that you had to workaround ...
> it would be enormously useful to have these listed.
Definitely! This is one of the central goals of the WG as I see it.
> 3. Most of the bugs mentioned are protocol issues or end-to-end
> performance issues on a single connection. Is it within scope to
> mention scalability issues, e.g. supporting large numbers of
> connections in TIME-WAIT?
This also strikes me as within scope, though with the line drawn at
the point where things cross into the research frontier. So, for example,
the issues raised in Joe Touch's draft RFC are good things to discuss;
but for some of them their resolution (e.g., how to share cwnd across
multiple connections) is research and needs to be dealt with in another
forum. It seems an important benefit of the WG is to highlight where
the research frontier is, too, so implementors can gauge where different
> 4. Are there bugs that crop up persistently in independent TCP
> implementations? e.g. mishandling of queued data for transmission
> when a close is issued? These would point to the most difficult
Likewise, this strikes me as a mainstream goal for the proposed WG.
> 5. Should we separate buggy implementations of algorithms and
> inappropriate (or debatable) algorithms?
Definitely, if by algorithm you mean what's specified in an RFC. We need
to consider whether some of the RFC's need clarification or expansion, but
this is a considerably more significant step than cataloging implementation