Re: [rmcat] test cases for coupled cc [was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-02]

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zahed,

see inline.

On 25.02.2016 10:03, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
>
> Please see inline below.
>
> BR
>
> Zahed
>
>
>
> On 02/24/2016 12:06 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>> Hi Zahed,
>>
>> I agree with Michael. My view is here that we need to evaluate each
>> combination of a certain scheme to couple things using a certain
>> congestion control algorithm separately.
> Fine. but again what exactly are we supposed to evaluate? the
> performance of the congestion control algorithm or the performance of
> the coupled congestion control algorithm? or something else.

The performance of the combined system of the coupling algo and the selected 
cc aglo.

>> That means, if someone proposes a new (generic) scheme for coupling,
>> we as a group would only advise to use this scheme with a certain cc
>> algorithm if we have seen results for this specific combination. Does
>> this make sense to you?
> Kind of, this means it is fine to have a coupled congestion control that
> may not work will all the combinations even if RMCAT proposes more that
> one congestion control algorithms.

Yes (as long as this is clearly stated in the doc).

>
> I didnt get the "generic"  part though. How can the WG call a coupled
> congestion "generic" even if that fails to show results with all the
> RMCAT CC algorithms (assuming RMCAT has proposed more than one CC
> algorithms)?

That's only a matter of how it is described in the doc. Basically you say, we 
describe this in a generic way, but it's only tested together with these 
algos. If you want use it with others, it might be possible, but you have to 
(adapt and) test it on your own. Important is that you have both in the same 
doc: the generic description and how it is applied to certain algos. Does 
that make sense? Or it this a problem for any of your work?

I believe that is at least the approach we are currently taking for the 
coupled-cc draft that we have. Micheal, please speak up if you have a 
different view here!

Mirja



>>
>>
>> I hope this also reflects the view of the wg. If not, please let us
>> now and we would need to discuss this again.
>>
>> Mirja
>>
>>
>