[rmcat] Guidelines for Internet Congestion Control at Endpoints?

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 18 October 2019 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110AB120C56 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.803
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xa9yHHWVkBLw for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8252120857 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro-5.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D78351B0007C for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:54:31 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5DA9B607.5080206@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:54:31 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rmcat@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/uyOaCkGA-ceYbdwmb06uSu6zaFI>
Subject: [rmcat] Guidelines for Internet Congestion Control at Endpoints?
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:54:37 -0000

Hi all,

I've written a draft about how to perform congestion control. The goal 
is to gather and
consolidate these recommendations from across the RFC-series. It is 
intended to provide input
to the design of new congestion control methods in protocols, such as 
IETF QUIC. It is not a goal
to (overly) constrict the design space, rather to define bounds that are 
reasonable for a wide range of methods. This may be harder than it 
seemed at first, and if the IETF decides to take on this work, as I hope 
it may, the current draft could change substantially before this is 
concluded.

The target is tsvwg. However, I expect the rmcat group has some 
important experience around how to do "good" CC that is quite different 
to that of TCP. If anyone wishes to comment on whether the ID is a 
good/bad idea, and make suggestions for doing things better, please do!

The draft is here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-cc/

Gorry