Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com
 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659181A0176 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No,
 score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,
 RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 L3XwkURIIsTr for
 <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::57])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36461A017B for
 <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out1.uio.no with
 esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1WdHSA-0003h1-0z;
 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:30 +0200
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with
 esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from
 <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1WdHS9-0006c0-JW; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:29 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <20140423163717.GG86778@verdi>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:27 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E4B3960-4AA1-4F20-A46F-913E143AA18A@ifi.uio.no>
References: <5357B281.1030900@alvestrand.no>
 <CAA93jw6paiARfbd_S8_OzBLy9pxavxe9wVM_Yqte_oUaPBHxiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140423163717.GG86778@verdi>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: 
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 6 sum msgs/h 1 total
 rcpts 15662 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-6.1, required=5.0,
 autolearn=disabled, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.051, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, 
 uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 09113F87B410D80791460587E0DC905AE27BDC42
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -60 maxlevel 80
 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 5082 max/h 16 blacklist 0 greylist 0
 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gTfbznJdlCYiPsB0tk3275Yhv2c
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which
 is more realistic?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list
 <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>,
 <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>,
 <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:04:41 -0000

On 23. apr. 2014, at 18:37, John Leslie wrote:

> Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> I'm not sure if we have a shared definition of "congestion".  Mine is
>> network delays exceeding that of what human factors research notes
>> as "perceptible" with about 20ms as the outer bound.
>=20
>   I, OTOH, am quite sure we don't have a shared definition of =
congestion.
>=20
>   My preferred definition is rate-of-arrival exceeding =
rate-of-forwarding.

FWIW, there's RFC 6077, which discusses definitions of congestion and =
congestion control in its introduction. It says:

" Congestion can be defined as a state or condition that occurs when
   network resources are overloaded, resulting in impairments for
   network users as objectively measured by the probability of loss
   and/or delay.  The overload results in the reduction of utility in
   networks that support both spatial and temporal multiplexing, but no
   reservation"

which is based on a presentation by Keshav in 2007, which, in turn, is =
based on the long and boring discussion about this definition that =
happened when ICCRG was born. Been there, done that, let's not repeat =
please.

Buuuuuut this seems off topic for the context here anyway... if you =
really want to discuss this definition, I suggest to take it to ICCRG. =
There, we will tell you to read the mailing list archives  :-)

Cheers,
Michael

