[Iccrg] Re: updated CTCP draft
lachlan.andrew@gmail.com (Lachlan Andrew) Wed, 21 November 2007 04:04 UTC
From: lachlan.andrew@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:04:30 +0000
Subject: [Iccrg] Re: updated CTCP draft
In-Reply-To: <FCA794787FDE0D4DBE9FFA11053ECEB60C6C8CA7FC@NA-EXMSG-C110.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <FCA794787FDE0D4DBE9FFA11053ECEB60C6C8CA7FC@NA-EXMSG-C110.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <aa7d2c6d0711201956k7c6f7ce2i4c131003a2bb960a@mail.gmail.com>
X-Date: Wed Nov 21 04:04:30 2007
Greetings Murari, I've finally started reading your draft -- sorry for the delay. I'll get back to you once I've read it properly, but here are a couple of preliminary points: - I don't think it can be declared "safe" yet, since the "Control Law" section doesn't specify alpha. A later section says "we use alpha=1/8", but the draft doesn't say that that is part of the *requirements* of the algorithm. I could implement this with alpha=10000 and claim that it satisfies the protocol description. If you want to say these parameters are tunable, you might want to specify a range in which they can be varied, and specify a "default" value in the algorithm description. - Someone recommended using MUST, SHOULD, RECOMMENDED, MAY etc according to the normal practice for normative RFCs. I'd say you "SHOULD" do that (you don't have to if there is a good reason not to, but otherwise please do it). - It seems that dwnd can become negative if diff<gamma. In particular, if dwnd(t)=0, then dwnd(t+1) = -1. Is that what you mean? In an RFC, I believe it is important to be very precise about things like clipping. - I'd much rather see a separation of algorithm/implementation from justification/motivation. As one of many examples, discussion of fairness doesn't (to me) belong in the section defining the algorithm. This will also make clearer whether "automatic setting of gamma" is part of the algorithm or not. Unlike the other points, this doesn't affect whether or not it is "safe", so it is up to you, but I think it will make the document much easier to use. Cheers, Lachlan On 30/10/2007, Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Lachlan you must have seen my mail to iccrg on the updated draft, this had a > few more cosmetic changes, some more cleanups than the doc I sent out, but > from a technical stand point it's the same. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-01.txt > > Thanks -- Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 http://netlab.caltech.edu/~lachlan
- [Iccrg] RE: updated CTCP draft Murari Sridharan
- [Iccrg] Re: updated CTCP draft Lachlan Andrew