Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Ian,

On 09/03/2021 02:54, Ian Swett wrote:
> Thanks for moving beyond 'TCP-Friendly'.
>
> My best suggestion is 'fLow-Impact'
>
> I'd also be hesitant to put Reno in the name, but I think a name like 
> Reno-compatible/considerate/accommodating is ok if the term is still 
> anchored on Reno in some way.
>
> The goal of this new term is to depart slightly from the traditional 
> definition of 'TCP-friendly', correct?  ie: If there's an 
> environment(ie: High-BDP with exogenous random loss) where Reno can 
> only utilize 1% of the bandwidth, and another congestion controller 
> can utilize the other 99% without significantly changing Reno's 
> bandwidth, that would not be 'TCP-Friendly', but would be '<new term>'?

I think the concept of using what Reno can't has been around for some time.
I was looking for something more than that.
Something that's not as sensitive to single losses as Reno. Which means 
it could push Reno down (somewhat more than say Cubic in Reno mode 
would), but not "significantly".


Bob

>
> Thanks, Ian
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:35 PM Neal Cardwell 
> <ncardwell=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 8:19 PM Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         tsvwg-ers,
>
>         In the survey of the L4S Prague Requirements, we got quite
>         significant push-back from developers about our two
>         requirements to fall back to Reno-Friendly (which the draft
>         defines as a translation of 'TCP-Friendly' into
>         transport-agnostic language, 'cos TCP isn't the only transport
>         these days).
>
>         Basically, people don't want to have to fall back to something
>         as lame a Reno (apologies if that's disparaging, but I'm just
>         the messenger).
>
>         I was hoping people would interpret 'Reno-Friendly' liberally.
>         But everyone takes Reno-Friendly to mean quite close to Reno
>         behaviour - not surprising really, given the definition of
>         TCP-Friendly in TFRC is roughly within 2x of Reno [RFC5348]
>         (pasted at the end).
>
>         What I'm looking for is a word that means "does not have a
>         significantly negative impact on traffic using standard
>         congestion control", which
>         RFC5033 allows for experimental congestion controls.
>
>
>
>     Reno-considerate?
>
>     Reno-accommodating?
>
>     neal
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/