Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Lloyd Wood wrote:
> At Tuesday 20/11/2007 07:12 -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
> 
>>> Why does congestion control require standardization, when every
>>> client/server application out there is perfectly capable of doing it?
>>> To achieve consistent behaviour across the widest range of
>>> applications...
>> I think this is a complete mis-characterization.  The answer is that
>> congestion control is standardized because congestion control is about
>> dealing with a *shared resource*.  We can do that control from a number
>> of places in the stack and people have advocated for each of them at
>> different points.  But, *where* that functionality exists is a second
>> question after we establish that the functionality needs to exist and we
>> need to standardize on it.  This persist business is not about
>> controlling a shared resource, but about controlling a *local
>> resource*.  Why should the community standardize local resource control?
> 
> The community standardised TCP window size advertisements. That's a local resource control issue, surely?

That's something you have to tell the other end, i.e., it requires a
change to the protocol on the wire. This one can be implemented without
any change to the protocol at all - entirely at the app layer.

>> That seems absurd to me.  So, to me, arguing about where to mitigate the
>> persist stuff is putting the cart before the horse.  First, we'd need to
>> establish some reason to standardize local resource control.
> 
> because it's useful?

Useful is a fine metric for a new protocol, not for mucking with such a
ubiquitous and established one unnecessarily, IMO.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm