Re: [p2pi] [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <> Tue, 21 October 2008 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF5C28C1C6; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3802A3A6B71; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEXv1YHX-tjW; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511523A6B67; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E683281B2; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:12:14 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9LECDGD030701; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:12:13 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:12:11 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:12:10 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter
Thread-Index: Ackzf4E2/A548ra5Q0e9PUcmoA3VPAAAl5uw
References: <>
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <>
To: "Stanislav Shalunov" <>, <>, <>, "TSV Area" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2008 14:12:11.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[02DA1CE0:01C93387]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:28:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [p2pi] [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The charter, as written looks reasonable to me.  I just hate the name

Even though you explained it before, "Advanced Network Applications"
still bothers me as it's completely unspecific.  Furthermore, I think
that "Techniques" isn't well-scoped enough to limit the work properly
as it seems to be focused on congestion control techniques, and not
NAT traversal techniques, search techniques, etc.

The way that the problem statement was described, I think what's really
meant is "bulk transfer applications that want to be a good neighbor to
real-time or other applications".  I guess the challenge is that this
doesn't produce a pronouncable acronym like TANA :).

It should really be something like:
"Minimizing Impact of Large Transfers" (MILT)
"Concurrent Realtime And Bulk Applications" (CRABA)
"Fast Transfers Adding Minimal Latency" (FTAML)
"Bulk And Realtime Flows Interacting as Good Neighbors" (BARFIGN) --
probably not a good one as it looks too much like "barfing" :)

But if nobody else has a problem with the TANA name, I'll keep my mouth
shut so we don't waste time and energy.  There are bigger fish to fry!


>-----Original Message-----
>[] On Behalf Of Stanislav Shalunov
>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:17 AM
>To:;; TSV Area
>Subject: [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter
>At the BoF in Dublin, we observed strong interest and 
>consensus that the TANA work should go forward as a working 
>group.  Does the following proposed charter, based on the BoF 
>description, capture what the community was interested in?
>Thanks,  -- Stas
>Techniques for Advanced Networking Applications (TANA) WG
>Transport Area Director(s):
>* Magnus Westerlund <>
>* Lars Eggert <>
>Transport Area Advisor:
>* Lars Eggert <>
>Mailing Lists:
>General Discussion:
>To Subscribe:
>In Body: (un)subscribe
>Description of Working Group:
>The TANA WG is chartered to standardize a congestion control 
>mechanism that should saturate the bottleneck, maintain low 
>delay, and yield to standard TCP.
>Applications that transmit large amounts of data for a long 
>time with congestion-limited TCP, but without ECN fill the 
>buffer at the head of the bottleneck link. This increases the 
>delay experienced by other applications. In the best case, 
>with an ideally sized buffer of one RTT, the delay doubles. In 
>some cases, the extra delay may be much larger. This is a 
>particularly acute and common case is when P2P applications 
>upload over thin home uplinks: delays in these cases can 
>sometimes be of the order of seconds.
>The IETF's standard end-to-end transport protocols have not 
>been designed to minimize the extra delay introduced by them into the
>network. TCP, as a side effect of filling the buffer until it 
>experiences drop-tail loss, effectively maximizes the delay. 
>While this works well for applications that are not 
>delay-sensitive, it harms interactive applications that share 
>the same bottleneck. VoIP and games are particularly affected, 
>but even web browsing may become problematic.
>TANA is a transport-area WG that will focus on broadly 
>applicable techniques that allow large amounts of data to be 
>consistently transmitted without substantially affecting the 
>delays experienced by other users and applications.
>The WG will work on the following:
>(1) An experimental congestion control algorithm for 
>less-than-best-effort "background" transmissions, i.e., an 
>algorithm that attempts to scavenge otherwise idle bandwidth 
>for its transmissions in a way that minimizes interference 
>with regular best-effort traffic.
>Desired features of such an algorithm are:
>* saturate the bottleneck,
>* eliminate long standing queues and thus keep delay low when 
>no other traffic is present,
>* quickly yield to regular best-effort traffic that uses 
>standard TCP congestion control,
>* add little to the queueing delays induced by TCP traffic,
>* operate well in today's typical networks with FIFO queueing 
>with drop-tail discipline,
>* where available, use explicit congestion notification (ECN), 
>active queue management (AQM), and/or end-to-end 
>differentiated services (DiffServ).
>Application of this algorithm to existing transport protocols 
>(TCP, SCTP, DCCP) is expected to occur in the working groups 
>that maintain those protocols.
>(2) A document that clarifies the current practices of 
>application design and reasons behind them and discusses the 
>tradeoffs surrounding the use of many concurrent transport 
>connections to one peer and/or to different peers.
>Standard Internet congestion control result in different 
>transport connections sharing bottleneck capacity. When an 
>application uses several unchoked and not rate-limited 
>transport connections to transfer through a bottleneck, it may 
>obtain a larger fraction of the bottleneck than if it had used 
>fewer connections. Although capacity is the most commonly 
>considered bottleneck resource, middlebox state table entries 
>are also an important resource for an end system 
>communication. Other resource types may exist, and the 
>guidelines are expected to comprehensively discuss them.
>Applications use a variety of techniques to mitigate these 
>concerns.  These techniques have not always been reviewed by 
>the IETF and their interaction with TCP dynamics is poorly 
>understood.  The WG document the known techniques, discussing 
>the consequences and, where appropriate, provide guidance to 
>application designers.
>(3) The WG will discuss how to best take into account prior 
>work in the area.  The outcome will be either incorporated 
>into the document specifying the experimental congestion 
>control algorithm or into a separate document summarizing prior work.
>Goals and Milestones
>TBD  Submit "Multiple Transport Connections in Applications 
>Design" to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
>TBD  Submit "Transport for Advanced Networking Applications 
>(TANA)" to the IESG for consideration as an Experimental RFC
>Transport for Advanced Networking Applications (TANA) Problem Statement
>No Requests for Comments
>Stanislav Shalunov <> 
>Hacking Startups <> 
p2pi mailing list