Re: [Int-area] [DMM] New draft posted: Anchorless mobility management through hICN (hICN-AMM): Deployment options

[Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]>]

IMHO, there's no such a thing as a wrong question. But you can always ask
another one.
And BTW, I answered already to one of the questions you redo.  Yes, there
will be another draft on transport.
It is not ready but I can have a technical report right before the IETF
week and I might give a presentation
at the next ICNRG meeting. That is out of scope for this list I think.

On the other hand, the draft provides information about how a transport
service sits on top of this
forwarding machinery. There might be several transport protocols of course,
likewise today there are multiple transport protocols using IPv6, providing
different kind of services.
They can be TCP friendly, they can be lower than best effort such as LEDBAT
vs TCP etc.

Without loss of generality, I can say that we have one specific
implementation of a transport protocol
that provides reliable transport services.  We have used several flow
control laws and algorithms
including AIMD, MIMD,  and more recently BBR.
It has been demoed in different venues for some applications
such as MPEG-DASH at SIGCOMM last year and also MWC last year.
Some analysis about that can be found in the following paper.

J. Samain, et. al
Dynamic Adaptive Video Streaming: Towards a Systematic Comparison of ICN
and TCP/IP.
IEEE Trans. Multimedia 19(10): 2166-2181 (2017)
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2017.2733340

Another transport service that we have implemented and that I might demo
during the IETF week
is one used for a scalable RTC system based on WebRTC, Chrome and
Simulcast.
Nothing to do with TCP friendliness of course for this protocol.



On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:39 PM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>>
>> #3 is the wrong question to ask. The right question is "Does the new
> transport protocol disrupt TCP?". Of particular interest, how does the
> protocol interact with TCP on wire? What is the congestion control of the
> new transport protocol? How is it "TCP friendly"? As Behcet mentioned,
> these are not things that can be answered in a few sentences on an email
> thread. The draft posted seems bereft of any details about the new
> transport protocol; will another draft be coming that specifies the
> transport protocol and answers questions like this?
>
> Tom
>