Re: WG Review: Low Extra Delay Background Transport (ledbat)

    Date:        Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
    From:        IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
    Message-ID:  <20081030220230.7E6493A6906@core3.amsl.com>

This looks like useful work to do, and to me, the charter mostly
looks fine, just one point.

The (proposed) charter says ...

  | * operate well in networks with FIFO queueing with drop-tail
  | discipline

which in itself is OK, but doesn't say anything about links that
don't have those characteristics.

For different queueing strategies, I doubt there'd be a problem, but
I might expect the charter to be explicit that for (what I will call here)
intelligent queueing (almost anything other than FIFO that's useful)
the resulting protocol from this group will at the very least be
easily distinguishable (without necessarily resorting to DiffServ
mechanisms) from regular traffic.  Of course, is the result is an
IP application protocol that is not TCP, that's not going to be
an issue, but if it is a different behaviour of TCP stacks for
background traffic, it might not be so easy for intermediate routers
to be able to separate the background traffic from other traffic.

Perhaps more difficult, I'm not sure, would be how well the protocol is
to function with random drop, or RED, instead of drop tail.  I'd hope
it would be "at least as well as drop-tail", but I'm not sure, and
the charter doesn't say.

kre

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf