Re: [re-ECN] FW: ConEx BoF announcement text

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think I would rather say something slightly different about TCP.
> How about making the whole:
> 
> " The Internet is, in essence, about pooling resources. The ability to
> share capacity has been paramount to its success and has traditionally
> relied on the voluntary use of TCP congestion control. However, TCP
> may not be the most suitable algorithm for applications such as
> peer-to-peer or streaming video that break some of its fundamental
> design assumptions.

   Yes!

> Such applications are able to cause enough congestion over time to
> severely impair the quality of experience of other users.

   True, but not quite right. Perhaps:
" 
" Such applications need to be a bit more aggressive than TCP under
" some circumstances even if they are less aggressive on average. ISPs
" are unable to tell whether such applications are, on average, more
" or less aggressive than standard TCP congestion-control.

> This has led some ISPs to deploy ad-hoc solutions such as volume
> accounting, rate policing or deep packet inspection in an attempt to
> distribute capacity differently.

   Yes.

> The consequences of such practices are increasing calls for government
> regulation and stifling innovation at the transport and application
> layer (see for example, the problem statement I-D (ref below) and
> RFC5594)."

   The reader stumbles a bit over this. Perhaps:
" 
" Since such practices cannot distinguish whether the policing actually
" matches the problem, they tend to stifle innovation at the transport
" and application layers. Also, such practices often appear to be aimed
" at stifling competitors to those ISPs, leading to increasing calls for
" government regulation.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>