Re: [nwcrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-05.txt

Marie-Jose Montpetit <> Fri, 19 February 2021 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D2F3A1186 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7rXO3hGQixau for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 532423A1189 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y7so21364841lji.7 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:57:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/CNQ8yNotRf/iRkVAxJHqA8yKA3wpTA0jftszA0tBYE=; b=qyCCxnbYggsmcRMtsJka1x5azJL8vQ89jB2esv4qRZO7HS1JfxY2QMFsHGXe51Solo YGsfeHh6GLHbbtwRDRntD8hz+Q6sO681W+vJrqvw+nl+zblPoaQOtuNxUKAFA2rXfKHe 3qRLBEIGrrvjVCm0aKEPkAIiaBYlSxYjNOsgx/09+3wWbXFAzQpiFHSe3wS5KGeePeO7 Rm6LmT+si30LNGTpLEUABR2efIK1bu90wvDBiewKEDAkyZB3EQJ5DV0n+85VoQ6z9WK0 7b7va/zJiCjwmSbudPYIRI+7uN5Qf97G7jePMKl8hIBpa3qEzU9sC7w/zLmHRndg+5b4 vL6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/CNQ8yNotRf/iRkVAxJHqA8yKA3wpTA0jftszA0tBYE=; b=Im02oCQlP8URbxy0E60FDYOto/0o4dis/8Qz599O6luI98wD9gLAAphSPP0Dy6sEM0 xrF0PY4k1fwuhlzX/bU18rPhOSSTZzFZnjg1z8A3zwTCDQlpvRBbQ3M/B/Ga+32537+z 9Sbvxz26SBzj9fgFkLVizu/pE5TkAr2Z0DjBMsbGTUC+Clkrr/EnYxmoGeVDyrGIU5U0 6Qo5OcCiggoLCLJL0hjyX28XZoWdM54hDXlYDflv0LfrGDuSjCrem0xE9EtvXVLeacaf 1swtPHlIwVTb0WNdiftI2fvLBCU4vBORshmuTCfKQq6CPM0e5AKCBjxZAaAHA7V8hF9n V5lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tCrSAM2hn7IXqdubMX83GzxT4r9R57WRwn5J0Lq/+YCZxnb9S qyXJAcsLcNNi/nP70TaAsFWz1EcbFs/bds6VrnoTng==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyoiW+nN/r0vclnqq4fttAkLxqBrn5Fw7JwnMo1tX+QKBe43Apjsls3iRKXXDMsZzKcMHdRxUE1XURUf4wC7/M=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9088:: with SMTP id l8mr6507585ljg.29.1613753875060; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:57:54 +0000
From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:57:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Welzl <>, Emmanuel Lochin <>
Cc: iccrg IRTF list <>, roca <>, Kuhn Nicolas <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a6ab105bbb35a27"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nwcrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-05.txt
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 16:58:10 -0000

All points well taken. But highlighting the research problems and who is
going that research is still something the draft should be more  focused
on. Not just a review of what has been done :)


Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

From: Emmanuel Lochin <> <>
Reply: Emmanuel Lochin <> <>
Date: February 19, 2021 at 11:55:27 AM
To: Michael Welzl <> <>, Marie-Jose
Montpetit <> <>
Cc: roca <> <>, iccrg IRTF list
<> <>, Kuhn Nicolas <>
<>, <> <>
Subject:  Re: [nwcrg] I-D Action:

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.


Emmanuel LOCHIN
ENAC - Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile
7, avenue Edouard Belin CS 54005, 31055 Toulouse Cedex 4