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

[Caitlin Bestler <[e-mail]>]

Murari Sridharan wrote:
> Isn't the goal here to achieve lower than best-effort, so essentially "Low Priority TCP",
 > assuming non-TCP traffic flows E2E we can make it more general and 
call it "Congestion control
 > for low priority flows"
> 
> Murari
> 

A successful algorithm here would not necessarily "lower than" 
best-effort, because the "low priority' flow could actually achieve
higher throughput than a conventional TCP flow.

I believe that the key phrase in the proposed charter is very much
on target -- that the "TANA flows" rapidly yield to conventional TCP.
It is possible to both rapidly yield *and* to rapidly claim bandwidth
that conventional TCP algorithms would have left unused.

The extent to which a given algorithm can rapidly claim bandwidth
without imperiling existing TCP traffic is of course something that
the WG would have to review. But given the charter objective of
"saturation" it is important to understand that this is not necessarily
"low priority" traffic. It is undoubtedly very jitter-tolerant traffic
that can be quite elastic in its bandwidth utilization for any short
period of time.

-----
Caitlin Bestler
[e-mail] - http://www.asomi.com/CaitlinBestlerResume.pdf
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi