Re: [ppsp] AD review of draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06

[Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>]

On 05/10/2013 10:16 AM, Riccardo Petrocco wrote:
> Dear Wesley and All,
>
>     Maybe someone can comment on whether alternatives like TFRC
>     were investigated or not?  TFRC is Standards Track, and intended
>     for providing a smoother rate like we talked about in the
>     past (LEDBAT may not be good for relatively rate-inelastic
>     flows), but I don't know if the feedback it requires would be
>     compatible with what the PPSPP framing provides or not.
>
>
> We are currently looking into alternatives to LEDBAT for the PPSPP.
> The majority of CCs will require some small modifications to the content
> of the DATA and ACK messages as defined in the draft.
>
>     I also would not think it wise to change to something else
>     that doesn't match the implemented and deployed base, unless
>     the people implementing and deploying agree that something
>     else is clearly better and will be implemented and deployed
>     by them.
>
>
> We will also run some large experiments in a controlled environment to
> evaluate the effect and feasibility of the different solutions.

Good to hear but my question is in what time the WG could expect to see 
results?

This isn't about building up pressure, but more about when the peer 
protocol should be going for publication as RFC.

   Martin