On Jan 20, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2010-1-20, at 15:45, Michael Welzl wrote:
I'm not opposed to the WG taking this on is they absolutely want. I
mainly don't see a reason for this to be a DCCP WG Experimental RFC
vs. an ICCRG Experimental RFC.
Just to understand, does this "vs." mean that it could
just as well be an ICCRG Experimental RFC in your
opinion, i.e. you're only stating your opinion about these
two choices here, and not about having MulTFRC as an
Experimental RFC at all or not?
correct. I have no issues with ICCRG publishing it, but I don't see
why the WG should, at least at this point.
This draft is step 1 of a 2-step plan, which emulates
what happened with TFRC: first, we want to publish
a general specification of the congestion control
mechanism. Second, we want to publish a CCID
specification for DCCP (which we haven't yet written,
but intend to). At least the latter should be brought here,
I suppose, and since it seemed to fit the charter (and
the chairs agreed about this), I'm proposing it here.
Additionally, this group doesn't seem to be very busy.
I also wouldn't have a problem moving the draft
to ICCRG, as long as this doesn't get in the way
of our intended step 2 (the CCID specification).
Opinions?
Cheers,
Michael
