Message was formerly titled: TFRC minrate calculation after idle or
data...
Thanks Eddie. So... I think some things need to be discussed at the next
IETF meeting (on the list before if we can). Here's my suggested list of
issues:
1) What still needs to be done to complete TFRC.bis?
2) What is the impact of implementation experience and
sepcification of TFRC.bis on the evolution of the CCID-3 Spec?
3) Erata list to CCID-3!
Are there other things that I have missed?
- I'd be happy to assign agenda time to look at these things.
Gorry
(WG Chair)
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Eddie Kohler wrote:
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>
