From nobody Fri Feb 19 08:55:33 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77BA3A1182; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:55:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lAEUV7rMkuo3; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:55:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss-3.enac.fr (imss-3.enac.fr [195.220.159.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFD53A117F; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta1.lfbq.aviation (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imss-3.enac.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898E76019F; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:55:26 +0100 (CET) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_uGBhwjKhPEroNMPFXBn9Ww)" Received: from [IPv6:2a01:e35:3985:8cd0:6da9:40a2:4981:fd6a] (pouff.recherche.enac.fr [195.83.136.8]) by webmail.lfbq.aviation (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 32bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0QOS00646CCDUY30@webmail.lfbq.aviation>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:55:26 +0100 (CET) Sender: emmanuel.lochin@enac.fr To: Michael Welzl , Marie-Jose Montpetit Cc: roca , iccrg IRTF list , Kuhn Nicolas , "nwcrg@irtf.org" References: <161346137865.25827.8548083280026753510@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C77F32B-9B7F-4892-9E44-BF6CA7CA8595@inria.fr> <10191065-AEEE-4BE8-A481-3A7C1F1621FA@ifi.uio.no> <6AAD8EE9-165A-4DE8-A948-85B9F0331819@ifi.uio.no> From: Emmanuel Lochin Message-id: <9552b0fc-3932-4ab5-56ff-f189d8946b45@enac.fr> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:55:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 In-reply-to: <6AAD8EE9-165A-4DE8-A948-85B9F0331819@ifi.uio.no> Content-language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-9.1.0.1172-8.2.0.1013-25984.001 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TMASE-Version: IMSS-9.1.0.1172-8.2.1013-25984.001 X-TMASE-Result: 10--1.048900-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: gTucSmrmRMNor4mPA3EMtvHkpkyUphL9z8wCbtViOqPLkl8e9W70iyuf H7bA6bqdDCbFNfCmsSMdBpvqzcgWQSJQE1kSYQZ4XMItKEl/EvSCjlNkELBqNAQsw9A3PIlLOPx 1SoHFsV3XwaCkhG1gQnjCFVXmj9DcPe2gxHtwxZk+cpqRIh358CPnqu8VWAnssS0sZEB7c8aLSg FreHrtz+B8d6X4H0bk/FbT2/LT1hbb0fmG0L5pPNqLN7nigLBU9+PHtghP8GJ68VpiQd7QGMDBo T9Fo4P/pbeQJFLzO0aq5jwhqTjnM3sWd58obqIH7T+j7/gPsPMtKyzYRWiMu2LY/cah2kkr7ubN r4ZwU0PCdjQmswzDu9elbshaoVohwo8cP/CBylUrCLswi3NpjWRt0giz+0LSI3ymHOS8tAPzTu3 5URal5omZnwWWIBq/N862GpoHoW5QGE1L2htEcGhQCsqhuTNiFW7LlhOHf7fDv5dDcuT2eVUu4d MbNIOZWvQfmvhc7dwtQhEbf9gJH5+XV43cg3cr30kDaWZBE1ST+6g5ulhlrg6ekXjRdM4hNGJ/s lKtg6pvuSnDQFT8DWb2vxEfdpQdKPO8otLDzf0otYKdGcWqim8/sYT3XnwW7xG/Ea13LVkgNiXR lc2zRY2jjJThmO3hHcN4x+ltYL2kwhnxbg1t+eQYBHVKqgDUXkzKqhs+h7SbKItl61J/yZUdXE/ WGn0FSlnU38LCY8uOhzOa6g8KrYTZWqWSxSfDLwfHPV2AFaYay9nyB0as90+pLjrjhYlyU4gc1G /EJgbDmjL2P+WCxcJNo42gP+CfxUMPX2fNRpEVfCsEpckTqjSj/XDAAk6h1koX4itH/yVqIhRhn sygNcl3ZDg7WEM8nFEfa53lOPIc1lQJ3PC9nroFuK9bJzOJ19ZiFRIVcAZWjW3J42OgtJ6oP1a0 mRIj X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [nwcrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-05.txt X-BeenThere: nwcrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Network Coding Research Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:55:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_uGBhwjKhPEroNMPFXBn9Ww) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Hi all, Le 18/02/2021 à 14:02, Michael Welzl a écrit : >> >> This is where the coding “gains” are the most important. Also some >> temporary “perceived” congestion (when there is in fact still >> capacity) can have longer term effect if the CC is very conservative >> (and yes someone will tell me it’s not fully the case anymore). All >> of this to say that the draft should be clearer on the type of >> research that is needed again when the performance is impacted 2 >> conflicting control loops. >> > I don’t fully subscribe to this “2 conflicting control loops” view. It > depends on the scenario, I guess. E.g., if congestion control operates > on unreliable data transfer, and FEC operates on top, repairing > losses, then these are quite separate functions, doing separate > things, not conflicting. > > Anyway, it’s fair that you ask for more clarity in the draft, but > that’s why I’m trying to really understand your concrete questions or > concerns. Agree with Michael, there is no control loop for NC. At least, for the NC discussed so far at NWCRG. I mean the generation of encoded packets does not depend on feedback while their sending lays on a transport protocol. EL -- Emmanuel LOCHIN ENAC - Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile 7, avenue Edouard Belin CS 54005, 31055 Toulouse Cedex 4 France http://www.enac.fr https://elochin.github.io/ --Boundary_(ID_uGBhwjKhPEroNMPFXBn9Ww) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Hi all,

Le 18/02/2021 à 14:02, Michael Welzl a écrit :

This is where the coding “gains” are the most important. Also some temporary “perceived” congestion (when there is in fact still capacity) can have longer term effect if the CC is very conservative (and yes someone will tell me it’s not fully the case anymore). All of this to say that the draft should be clearer on the type of research that is needed again when the performance is impacted 2 conflicting control loops.

I don’t fully subscribe to this “2 conflicting control loops” view. It depends on the scenario, I guess. E.g., if congestion control operates on unreliable data transfer, and FEC operates on top, repairing losses, then these are quite separate functions, doing separate things, not conflicting.

Anyway, it’s fair that you ask for more clarity in the draft, but that’s why I’m trying to really understand your concrete questions or concerns.

Agree with Michael, there is no control loop for NC. At least, for the NC discussed so far at NWCRG.
I mean the generation of encoded packets does not depend on feedback while their sending lays on a transport protocol.

EL


-- 
Emmanuel LOCHIN
ENAC - Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile
7, avenue Edouard Belin CS 54005, 31055 Toulouse Cedex 4 France
http://www.enac.fr
https://elochin.github.io/
--Boundary_(ID_uGBhwjKhPEroNMPFXBn9Ww)--