Dear Sally and All,
I support this document.
Some NiTs in the document:
The headings from page 10 are not aligned properly.
3.1 Relationship with TFRC and TFRC-SP
This document is based on CCID 3 [RFC4342], TFRC, and TFRC-SP. For TFRC,
RFC 3448 [RFC3448] has been obsoleted by RFC 4342 [RFC4342].
--> Change to:
This document is based on CCID 3 [RFC4342], TFRC, and TFRC-SP. For TFRC,
RFC 3448 [RFC3448] has been obsoleted by RFC 5348 [RFC5348].
3.2. Example Half-Connection
This example differs from that for CCID 3 in [RFC4342] only in that the
allowed transmit rate is determined by [RFC4828] as well as by
[RFC5348].
--> Consider rephrasing. Change to something like:
This example differs from that of CCID 3 in [RFC4342] with respect to
allowed transmit rate which is determined by [RFC4828] as well as by
[RFC5348].
2. Each DCCP-Ack packet uses a sequence number, identifies the most recent
packet received from the sender,
--> Change to:
Each DCCP-Ack packet uses a sequence number, identifying the most
recent packet received from the sender,
3. The sender continues sending DCCP-Data packets as controlled by
the allowed transmit rate. Upon receiving DCCP-Ack packets, the
sender updates its allowed transmit rate as specified in [RFC5348]
(Section 4.3) and [RFC4828].
--> Remove extra space between Section 4.3 and [RFC4828].
Section 5:
Other Congestion Control Mechanisms
The other congestion control mechanisms such as slow-start, feedback
packets, and the like are exactly as in CCID 3, and are described in
the subsection on "Other Congestion Control Mechanisms" of Section 5
in [RFC4342].
--> Change to:
The other congestion control mechanisms such as slow-start, feedback
packets are exactly as in CCID 3, and are described in the subsection on
"Other Congestion Control Mechanisms" of Section 5 in [RFC4342].
Section 6.1: First para.
For short loss intervals of at most two round-trip times, TFRC-SP
computes the loss interval length as the data length divided by the number
of dropped or marked data packets, (rather than as the data length of the
loss interval).
--> Change to:
For short loss intervals of at most two round-trip times, TFRC-SP
computes the loss interval length as the data length divided by the number
of dropped or marked data packets (rather than as the data length of the
loss interval).
8.7. Dropped Packets Option (para 6)
This conservative assumption leads to the minimum send rate
for the corresponding loss intervals.
--> Is this maximum send rate?
Regards
Arjuna
-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: DCCP Start of WGLC for: draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-03.txt
> [end 16th April 2009]
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:24:38 -0700
> From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in
> Scotland, No SC013683.
> To: 'dccp' working group <dccp@xxxxxxxx>, dccp-chairs@xxxxxxxx
>
> Dear WG,
>
> This is to announce the start of a Working Group Last Call to request
> the IESG to publish the following draft as an Experimental RFC:
>
> Profile for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
> Congestion ID 4: TCP-Friendly Rate Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-03.txt
>
> Please *DO* send any comments to the list (or directly to me if you feel
> some sensitivity).
>
> We also need to judge if people think this is useful to publish, so
> simple comments, such as "I support this" or "I don't support" are also
> appreciated.
>
> Mark Handley has agree to provide an invited review of this spec to the
> group.
>
> This last call will end on midnight UTC on 16th April 2009 (allowing a
> few extra days for those traveling home from the IETF).
>
> Gorry Fairhurst
> (DCCP Co-Chair)
>
