Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

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 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?

L.

Saratoga: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/dtn/

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[e-mail]> 


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