While I agree with your points, I also feel like we are in a different
situation with TFRCbis, where the delta between TFRCbis and FR might be
measured in months, rather than years....
Long live TCP and other dead research,
Eddie
Sally Floyd wrote:
I would also like to see RFC3448bis include Faster Restart. However,
the two specs serve different purposes and have different
"half-lives". RFC3448bis is being pushed towards quick publication as
Proposed Standard, I believe. FR is not suitable for that track.
Which will leave us in the unfortunate situation of the main
implementations *still* depending on multiple drafts, despite the TFRC
update. Not sure how I feel about that.
Of course, the underlying TCP congestion control mechanisms (slow-start,
congestion avoidance, ECN, retransmit timers, SACK blocks, initial windows,
etc.) are not all contained in a single RFC either. And they are not
static, but
are in flux. Personally, I would say that this is a sign of a healthy
congestion
control mechanism, that it changes and is refined as our experience with
it grows, and as it is studied in increasing diverse environments (e.g.,
levels of link bandwidth and of stat mux, application characteristics,
types of
links, etc.)
So my guess is that a TFRC that is completely specified in a single stable
RFC is likely to be a sign of a dead congestion control mechanism.
Unfortunately for those of us who are trying to wrap up various pieces of
old work.
- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/
