I understand that RFC3448 will be obsoleted by publication of this
documents. Implementors of TFRC need to carefully consider the new draft
within the last-call!
As for RFC4242 (CCID-3), the language in the RFC is clear:
3.1. Relationship with TFRC
The congestion control mechanisms described here follow the TFRC
mechanism standardized by the IETF [RFC3448]. 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.
My interpretation of this is that the replacement for RFC 3448 does NOT
change the throughput equation, but it does modify TFRC congestion
control. There is therefore no implicit update to RFC4342 - this would
still depend on RFC3448.
However, I know several of the contributors to the current work have
been evaluating this in the context of a modified RFC 4342 (in fact this
includes many features already in RFC 4342). Should/could this update
CCID-3? Would this invalidate the recently stable releases of CCID-3?
Should it define CCID-5?
This may be a good topic to discuss on this list and to raise at the WG
meeting.
Gorry
Sally Floyd wrote:
Tom -
What is the relationship of this update to CCID 3? Should CCID 3
implementations follow this instead of RFC 3448? I thought that was the
intent but RFC 4342 (CCID 3) says CCID 3 implementations MAY track
changes to the throughput equation, but SHOULD wait for explicit updates
to CCID 3 for other changes...
It is definitely the intent that CCID3 implementations follow rfc3448bis
instead of RFC 3448 (if rfc3448bis is approved).
RFC3448bis obsoletes RFC 3448 (if approved).
As part of the AD feedback from Lars, I just added:
Obsoletes: 3448 (if approved)
to the header of draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-06a.txt.
Can we just add:
Updates: 3448 (if approved)
to the header also?
Or do we need more language than that, do you think?
(Good catch...)
- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/
