Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-packet flows"

On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

> Hi all.
>  
> Mirko and I are working on an improved version of the “TCMTF – recommendations” document. Since TCMTF is not only suitable for real-time services, but also for non real-time ones (M2M, flows of ACKs, instant messaging), one possibility is using the term “small-packet flows”.

I agree TCMTF is suitable for small packets.  

But by saying "small packet flow", it implies that the *entire flow* has to be small packets for TCMTF to kick in.  But TCMTF is useful if the flow is a mix of small and large packets, and useful if the flow began with lots of large packets (TLS or SSH handshake followed by a file transfer, or an HTTP GET (with a 4KB cookie) followed by a file transfer).

I like the term "small-packet flows" and it is concise, but when initially defined it would be useful to explain the flow does not have to always be small packets for the lifetime of the flow.

-d

>  
> The advantages are clear:
>  
> - It is more generic.
> - It includes the characteristics of TCMTF-able packets:
> - low payload-to-header ratio
> - long-term flows
>  
> This term is also being used in some technical documents:www.huawei.com/ilink/en/download/HW_193034.
>  
> What do you think? Any other proposals?
>  
> Jose
>  
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> tcmtf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf