Based on the feedback, there seems to be pretty good support for doing
this draft as a DCCP working group item, and this seems a straight-
forward improvement to TFRC. Therefore, authors, please submit the
next version as a DCCP working group draft, with the draft name set
accordingly. The rest of us should read and send comments on the
draft, to help the authors make timely progress getting this forward.
Thanks!
- Pasi & Tom
On Aug 20, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
Ok, so a couple of questions:
Gerrit, Gorry: if there is support to take this forward, how close
to ready would you think we are -- are there open issues? Would it
be realistic to think about WGLC in about few months of time? With
quick reading I couldn't identify any contentious issues in the
draft, and I think it points out a relevant problem in TFRC that
needs to be addressed.
Group: would you support this to become a DCCP working group item
for a proposed standard RFC? I will assume that people who respond
"Yes" are committing to participate in reviewing this and the
subsequent versions of the draft.
- Pasi
On Aug 18, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Dear DCCP'ers.
Gerrit has been working on improving the CCID-3 implementation in
Linux, and this has raised the question of whether we can now
progress the 'sender sends RTT estimate' option that was originally
specified (and recommended) in RFC 5348 and which was submitted
asdraft-renker-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-00.txt, with accompanying
slides for IETF-72 at:
https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/slides/dccp-3.pdf
We therefore have uploaded
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-renker-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-01.txt
We'd like the WG to consider this minor, but important update as a
suitable piece of work for standardisation - We believe it
addresses several practical issues with the current DCCP CCID3/4
approach.
Please read and send comments to the DCCP list.
Best wishes,
Gorry & Gerrit
