Re: Conclusion of WGLC for: draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-03.txt

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

 



Sally, Looks good to me.

Please change /whith/ to /which/ and proceed to submit the revision.

Gorry


Sally Floyd wrote:
Gorry -

Authors, WG,

This note closes the IETF DCCP WGLC on CCID 4. During the LC, comments were received from Arjuna (below) and to this I would also like to add the following two comments. Please could the authors now issue a revised ID to address these issues?

Thanks, I made the changes suggested by Arjuna.

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst
DCCP Chair

---

Comments from WG Chair:

1) During the WG in San Francisco, the WG talked about whether the dependency of this document on previous documents needs to be clarified. Having re-examined the text, I can see there is scope
for a little more clarity in section 1.

RFC 4342 states:
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.

CCID-4 in section 1 now writes:

 "CCID 4 differs from CCID 3 in that CCID 4 uses TFRC-SP,
  the Small-Packet variant of TFRC [RFC4828], while CCID 3 [RFC4342]
  uses standard TFRC [RFC3448].  (At the time of writing of this
  document, [RFC3448] has been obsoleted by [RFC5348].  However,
  [RFC4342] predates [RFC5348], and refers instead to [RFC3448].) This
  document assumes that the reader is familiar with [RFC4342], instead
  of repeating from that document unnecessarily."

- Would the authors please consider reworking this a little?

- CCID 4 is derived from RFC 4342 and hence inherits from RFC 3448. But, it is my understanding that TFRC-SP also includes an update from TFRC.bis, now published as RFC 5348. We need to be clear whether CCID 4 assumes the updates in RFC5348 should also be applied when implementing CCID 4.


The draft now says this:

   "This document specifies an experimental profile for Congestion
   Control Identifier 4, TCP-Friendly Rate Control for Small Packets
   (TFRC-SP), in the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
   [RFC4340].  CCID 4 is a modified version of Congestion Control
   Identifier 3, CCID 3, which has been specified in [RFC4342].  This
   document assumes that the reader is familiar with CCID 3 instead of
   repeating from that document unnecessarily."

   "CCID 3 uses TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC), whith is now specified
   in RFC 5348 [RFC5348].  CCID 4 differs from CCID 3 in that CCID 4
   uses TFRC-SP [RFC4828], an experimental, small-packet variant of
   TFRC.  The original specification of TFRC, RFC 3448 [RFC3448], has
   been obsoleted by RFC 5348.  The CCID 3 and TFRC-SP documents both
   predate RFC 5348 and refer instead to RFC 3448 for the specification
   of TFRC.  However, this document assumes that RFC 5348 will be used
   instead of RFC 3448 for the specification of TFRC."


2) I often use the formulation "CCID-3" and "CCID-4" when I write about DCCP, but so far in standards documents we have not hyphenated the CCID labels. Could the authors please update this document to consistently use the non-hyphenated style?

Done.


Many thanks for the feedback.
I will submit the revised draft in the next few days.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/




[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