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

Ian Swett <> Tue, 09 March 2021 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0BA3A0B55 for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:54:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6UfLsljl9LDj for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B9AB3A0B53 for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t5-20020a1c77050000b029010e62cea9deso5013998wmi.0 for <>; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 18:54:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fIAW92VlaESuTXgpDzMHOpxeRMvDG8vXBW+qynN6dD8=; b=RlOHFkUhk56J3ZgtYldEHocUFkikMitw830InG3mGQLqZyR8BtULlWII1Bo6+h2Lep XBH62mhfwzeE+thNsCUK9k51w7rvIJAsPrKMT44GCBzgDDV4eBAHqrqO7nJq0pbbLZOm m9mfZuihd+2ubWDJoeHzGU8hN9rsyVUEprUVlX6HTeUNOb/JKFJA+dr59iGjMPkcqVOo DQlRtDHesv/jV5mfgLlUUK1AMA32+acwCk/VlehJFbHbiYzlwjavZ+hoyOk38ob2T+Zr JBXvXUaufSxKqsz1iUJarum8a3IVJyR37uQOU/DOWCfhzP0GtTAjyhOq81Z1LnAHSbX2 sxuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fIAW92VlaESuTXgpDzMHOpxeRMvDG8vXBW+qynN6dD8=; b=YCXyAmYiuFiOXp7WLfNw0Zqaybv8K4zIh/tssEzvlSes0Hwjgelx4LtHYjfbE3bxJU CAlZrTvA4lxu1BRIOO/vq4s97nPCgU/Bcyx+0fV5key3oYtMNwx7cBJFQe5wW1T8TziV ZJvVQ5Q23kFofIrtl0FDlSjm8nNE4XTEaiBPmbTNfpiG35HKjND3vYcRRLXRJGngtolC TdUnlX5HWihXK1kCBoNJRCpUMGzNRvdm1akDi6V+oUNe4JDAkCq4RRNeQGRTlvQ4Ma1v 0n6WbuvdDrFHSKWpKd6e3+q3FtuIVNMeRaXX8bArvSKTwAWpu0ggZDSWSv4ZPeiVzNkq CFSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530qi1nfTZM0J1F33ehyRzmjWD68fbh8dpX3+U7bwNEu9jFe9QKt yHhZPA9NypbEuh3IWydximhEAXv95IWrpRGxhe6RPg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9FP25RpSO+9drzekkfe8JJ2115WYc5IMuGe73ZJccPRjYdM4FnjfWqLmwYsRi9cTjgTJLEs2AtDogzXtVoe0=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c759:: with SMTP id w25mr1537770wmk.139.1615258488640; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 18:54:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ian Swett <>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 21:54:36 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Neal Cardwell <>
Cc: Bob Briscoe <>, tsvwg IETF list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006fdd8005bd11ac8e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 02:54:53 -0000

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>'?

Thanks, Ian

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:35 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 8:19 PM Bob Briscoe <> 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