IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] Additional SPUD use-cases

Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F401A6F17 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 TAtaCihEBSqt for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B980A1A1BF5 for <spud@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbue6 with SMTP id ue6so76678428igb.1 for <spud@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gFUMWCwYMoV0ZAdpYk1YpovBZyvI2m1zM4oUL35Ki1w=; b=sE0IxWMWnuD0jxCxzU2T12wWiVwFuuTDghghmTl3EU8WO6HCAXXjJe2JYMi6S5qiW4 KN3tfw9G1uFsE1XOmO3Fts/RuROLzLtVXL1ah+EUfYzwlgxn7OFKKqHDBCX1Wy1U3jLi 1I0cy386Rv0PB8ZSdZjMZ59UU4XyjiTqeIy3vzHe3T7okAaAi/746ooYU9lPmYc4yzzQ 4Cc3eDCY5ZJ8V2QCHlgnQFIUNooeCNIuvV9rPN560XXOMIs+PVh96y4aIgLp+Nvetz91 zenLt+PLTwcThA1nf1CqhAEhLRja6RAYxpTrPdzAIQE0xxgOF+z6o2HjE27muQKdNtnW kCog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.149.210 with SMTP id x201mr35428783iod.33.1426696979181; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.113.196 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936412E51@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <B57E4F68-A0C6-44D8-A729-47B1BED309C9@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMB4kfmMuR61aAhHLzrhEK37dEqy9cpdaqdtzpuyoCbBfg@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936412E51@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:42:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD62q9WRVazAO5QNGbaLwVuesSHrASYVwY5W7A+UACY9x0G1BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140fe66a5769d051192c629
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/_q735zfWqsjCmIRsQ5o1mNqm9W8>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "Pal Martinsen \(palmarti\)" <palmarti@cisco.com>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] Additional SPUD use-cases
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:43:01 -0000

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

>  Here are four potentially related drafts:
>
>
>
> -- Rate Adaptation based on network feedback, and (to some extent) FCFS
> (weak) admission control:
>
>
>
> This work is TCP based, but with similar goals:
>
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mobile-tg-exposure-req-arch/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flinck-mobile-throughput-guidance/
>
>
>
> The latter draft is (IMHO) better viewed as a proof-of-concept
> demonstration that this can work, as opposed to a specific protocol design
> for how to do it.  Design concerns have been raised about what was done
> there (e.g., aggressive use of TCP options).
>

Hi David-

Are the congestion control concerns being discussed within a working group?

--aaron

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email