[Tmrg] TCP evaluation suite

[sallyfloyd at mac.com (Sally Floyd)]

Lachlan -

> After a long delay, here is a draft Internet Draft based on the
> PFLDnet TCP evaluation suite paper.
...
> - Currently, some of it is written in the style of a paper ("We use
> two flows...").  I think we should make it prescriptive ("Do this")
> instead of descriptive.  Should we also use SHOULD, MAY etc to make
> clear what is part of the "core" tests?

I haven't read this version yet, but I don't think it needs SHOULD, MAY,
etc.  Those are usually used only for protocols.  (For Informational
RFCs that were also targeted as Best Current Practice, and became
Best Current Practice RFCs, you could look at RFC 5033, or RFC 2914.)

...
> - All traffic loads have yet to be determined.  Sally suggested
> setting these by matching the loss rate observed in the Internet with
> the loss rate arising from newReno.  Since many current web servers
> use Linux/CUBIC, should we instead match the measurements to
> simulations of an appropriate mixture of newReno and CUBIC?

Either way seems ok by me.  Though there is a lot of TCP traffic out
there that is not from web servers...

> - How polished does something need to be to be registered as an
> "Internet Draft"?  Can we submit this as a -00 draft, or should we get
> more consensus first?

I think it is fine to submit the draft as is, as -00.   An initial  
version
of a draft is not taken to represent consensus.

Take care,
- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/