All of what you wrote below is ok with me; so this is where
I step back and see what happens, and then go with what
you and the chairs decide...
On Jan 20, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2010-1-20, at 16:17, Michael Welzl wrote:
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).
I note that CCIDs 248-254 are reserved for experimental use, so
there's not an immediate need to publish a WG document here either,
if the intent is to enable experimentation.
We'd also need to bake MulTFRC for a bit. We did find a number of
issues with RFC3448 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5348#section-9)
that we fixed in RFC5348 five years later, and those again lead to
changes in the CCIDs. We'd be signing up to do quite a bit of
analysis and experimentation if we want to get MulTFRC and its CCID
similarly stable.
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.
Yes, it could fit under the current "modular extensions to DCCP"
work item.
The key question, as always, is: does the community have the
interest and energy to actively develop MulTFRC and add a CCID for
it to DCCP?
Additionally, this group doesn't seem to be very busy.
Which is why I was hoping to declare victory and close it sooner
rather than later...
Lars
