Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] inband signaling (was: Re: Agenda requests for TSVWG@IETF101)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

I'm watching this thread, in all its variations across mailing lists, with
great interest, but not participating, except to say ...

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Michael:
>

deleted down to


> Maybe using a rather older refeence CC scheme like reno to define an easily
> implementable version of the CIR..PIR goal is not the right approach,
> but the description shuold be more abstract ? Or just use as Emmanual did
> rely on TFRC as a reference ? Given how i think ( i may be wrong) that
> TFRC is
> not really applied to TCP, i thought another approch would have to be used.


I wouldn't use TFRC as a reference unless you can find people who are
actively using it as if it was a good thing.

I was still on the IAB when RMCAT was chartered, but I was also on the IAB
program committee for https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/cc-workshop/,
which was the immediate predecessor activity for RMCAT, and IIRC, we
couldn't find anyone who actually used TFRC for serious work. It was
apparently being used as a fig leaf because prior to TFRC we had no advice
for non-TCP rate control at all. So, at least people could say "do
something, and TFRC is something", in their drafts without being flushed
out of the IESG.

IMO, of course.

Spencer, speaking NOT as an AD, in this case ...