Hi Gorry, Hmm, I remember discussing it at least. Was it in an earlier version of the charter? Oh, looking at our charter online (http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/dccp-charter.html), has it been reverted to some quite a bit earlier version? It talks about "Once the DCCP specification has stabilized" -- is this the original charter? Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:26 PM > To: Phelan, Tom > Cc: dccp >> 'dccp' working group > Subject: Re: Mul-TFRC (draft-welzl-multfrc-00) > > > Tom, > > I don't see anything in the Charter about using DCCP as a platform for > experimental standards - although clearly you *could* do that and there > are codepoints for experimentation, and that is fine. I was urging > restraint in standardising these new CCIDs. > > I also recall that ICCRG would be the first point point of review for > transport protocols that were not already deployed, or needed review > prior to being taken to a WG. I don't recall a special case for ICCRG in > the DCCP charter text. > > Gorry > > Phelan, Tom wrote: > > 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 > > > >
