Re: TFRC minrate calculation after idle or datalimited period

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



RFC4342 says:

   Conforming CCID 3
   implementations MAY track updates to the TCP throughput equation
   directly, as updates are standardized in the IETF, rather than wait
   for revisions of this document.  However, conforming implementations
   SHOULD wait for explicit updates to CCID 3 before implementing other
   changes to TFRC congestion control.

This means that changes to the "X" equation, defined in RFC3448 Section 3.1, can be implemented directly. But all other changes need explicit updates to RFC4342.

The "X" equation has not changed between RFC3448 and RFC3448bis. So RFC3448bis is, in standard compliance terms, irrelevant to RFC4342 implementations. It would be relevant to a later update of CCID3 of course.

I have not gotten involved with RFC3448bis, but maybe it is time to do that. It would be a shame if RFC3448bis recommended behavior that RFC4342bis then modified.

Eddie


Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

TFRC.bis is a maintainance version of TFRC, to correct the TFRC specification and will obsolete it when published. The stated milestone date is July 2007 - my notes show this is currently pending inputs from implementors (please do contribute to this within the WG).

As such, any current work that will be published after TFRC.bis MUST refer to TFRC.bis, and it would certainly be wise to consider this as the basis for all DCCP I-Ds.

However, DCCP CCID currently relies on RFC3448 (TFRC). As I see it, section 3.1 states how this dependency should be managed. I am not clear from reading this how an update of the TFRC base spec needs to be treated, is that what you are asking? I note that there are other issues that also need to be addressed in CCID-3.

Gorry

Eddie Kohler wrote:

I hope Sally and/or Mark speak up here. I'm not sure whether RFC3448bis is considered in its early stages, or should be implemented right away, or what....

Eddie


Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:

Eddie:
Ok I get it now..My entire arguments (hence the confusion )were based
on RFC3448-bis and not RFC3448...I was raising points from the
RFC3448-bis draft under the presumption that this draft obsoletes
rfc3448 when it comes to implementing in ns-2..

Arjuna



<snip>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]

  Powered by Linux