Arjuna -
Just to avoid ambiguity, in 3448-bis, would it be better to change data-limited to application-limited? This would conforms to RFC2861.
I actually like the term "data-limited" better. RFC 2861 uses the term "application-limited" to contrast with "network-limited". RFC3448bis discuss two kinds of application-limited conditions. The first is "idle" (e.g., in Section 4.4, considering whether the sender has been idle since the nofeedback timer was sent. The second is data-limited (e.g., in step (4) of Section 4.3, considering whether the interval covered by a feedback packet was a data-limited interval. (It is not possible for the interval covered by a feedback packet to have been an idle period.) And the draft specifically defines the term "data-limited". The text and the tables in Appendix C use the fact that "idle" and "data-limited" are different things. So I will add a note clarifying why we are using "data-limited" instead of "application-limited". And then, to be consistent, I might change the faster restart draft back to "data-limited" instead of "application-limited". OK? - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/
