Hi Gorry, It's been a while since I read the DCCP charter carefully, but I seem to remember something about cooperating with ICCRG to experiment with new congestion control protocols. My take on that is that we should consider creating experimental-track RFCs for protocols that have some level of support from the ICCRG (we can discuss what that level of support should be). One of the benefits of doing this through DCCP is that the congestion control protocol developer can concentrate on just that and let DCCP carry the burden of the rest of what makes a transport protocol. This seems to me to be good for the CC developers and good for DCCP, even though it won't necessarily lead to production deployment of DCCP (unless one of these CC protocols is a hit :-)). Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Gorry Fairhurst > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:53 AM > To: dccp >> 'dccp' working group > Subject: Mul-TFRC (draft-welzl-multfrc-00) > > > Pasi asked for comments on MulTFRC... > > I don't see the application (yet) that will drive this forward and the > user community that wants this to deliver whatever they need to do. If > people have potential uses for this, then it would be really good to > hear them. > > My take is that this is an interesting piece of research, and it could > be safe - I think it's good to experiment with new CC methods, however I > don't see the need to standardise each method, I question whether this > will encourage production use of DCCP. In this case, I'm not yet > persuaded there is a standardisation need. > > Gorry
