Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: Confirmation for Auto-Post of I-D draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv]

On 17/12/2013 15:58, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:28 AM,  <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:28 PM,  <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We've submitted a revised ID for new-cwv.
>>>>
>>>> There are 2 main updates:
>>>>
>>>> - The draft now firmly recommends the use of pacing. We will provide
>>>> performance data on pacing for the next IETF.
>>>>
>>>> - The draft has a small amendment to the algorithm to ensure that the
>>>> NVP
>>>> does not inhibit cwnd growth when a sender fully consumes the cwnd.
>>>> There
>>>> was previously a corner case in the measurement of pipeACK when a flow
>>>> started or resumed that could result making newCWV more conservative
>>>> than
>>>> standard TCP (e.g. for a bulk flow). We think the correction is within
>>>> the
>>>> original spirit of new CWV.
>>>>
>>>> We'd welcome feedback on these or any other aspects.
>>>
>>> I appreciate the new section on burst mitigation but why standard track?
>>>
>> The previous discussions on STD track centres on whether we would include
>> require a burst mitigation section, so this is now a good question.
>>
>>> The change has pro-found impact on congestion control as it changes
>>> how cwnd increases per ACK and after idle. There are a lot to
>>> experiment before we know this works well in real networks.
>>>
>> Are you referring to the new ack-mitigation section - requiring pacing
>> after idle?
> I am referring to the main changes proposed in the draft, not just
> pacing after idle.
>
OK, so this algorithm hasn't changed much for a couple of IETFs.

Do you have concerns about relaxing the Standard behaviour (collapsing 
to IW after one RTO), and that letting apps maintain a higher cwnd has 
dangers?

Or do you think the algorithm may keep to high a cwnd when non-validated?

Or is it something else?

- I'm happy to document/discuss (potential) concerns.

>>
>> Gorry
>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> the new CWV authors
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker draft submission service has received your draft
>>>> draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-04, and requires a
>>>> confirmation step in order to be able to complete the posting of
>>>> the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Please follow this link to the page where you can confirm the posting:
>>>> Confirmation URL:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/56402/confirm/c575579feb585d58d82af80a319918630e8d0529/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>          The IETF Secretariat
>>>>          through the draft submission service
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tcpm mailing list
>>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>
>>
>>
>