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

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

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=
[e-mail]> wrote:

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