User talk:Oldiowl

With Transmission Control Protocol this is not an add for iTCP. Can you tone it down a bit please or I will edit it out a bit. Thanks. --Imcdnzl 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for pointing it out. I have tried to shorten it. see if looks ok.

I have edited Transmission Control Protocol some more. Thanks very much for posting this information as it helps me in my research. However it doesn't need the prominence so I have toned it down. I've also shifted this discussion to your talk page as I put in the wrong place. By the way when you discuss things in Wikipedia it is polite to click on the signature button to put in your signature or you can just put 4 squiggles/tildes in and it will do it automatically --Imcdnzl 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Its Ok to tone it down to a sentence. However, I would prefer to re-word it little bit to reflect the iTCP or TCP Interactive more faithfully. Its much more than congestion control. Perhaps I will add few more worlds and a sentences. (Thanks for educating me on the signature feature- I now know how to use it.) See if you like this:

"A proposed extention mechanism TCP Interactive (iTCP) allows applications to subscribe to TCP events and respond accordingly for various functional extensions including congestion control."

That sounds fine to me --Imcdnzl 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is well known that the popular TCP state diagram you have added is overly simple. Many earlier books have popularized it- though it actually only explains the connection start and closeup nothing more. Have you noticed that it says nothing about the main internal operations of TCP- such as binay back-off, slow-start, flow control, etc? All are lumped into "ESTABLISHED" box? It was originally used to explain the connection setup and close process. But later for historical reasons has been mistakenly adopted to depict TCP states! (Indeed for IEEE Technical Committee of Internet, I am writing a doc on the historical evolution of TCP!)Anyway, TCP has much more states.

What I did here was shift the link to the bottom of the page as how you had inserted it was broken and I couldn't work out how to fix it (as I am new to wikipedia myself). If you can get it working properly feel free to shift it back. --Imcdnzl 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast there is one attempt to trace it back. EFSM is a much more formal language to describe states. This is a new diagram. To our knowledge it is the best state depiction of the RFC 793 available to date. Good luck with your research and noble effort to maintain the TCP page. --Oldiowl 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]