Re: [Tsvwg] comments wanted: draft-eggert-tsvwg-udp-guidelines

[Sally Floyd <[e-mail]>]

Lars -

>> My only feedback is that in Section 3.1, when the document says that 
>> applications
>> should consider implementing TFRC "or otherwise ensure that the 
>> application
>> complies with the congestion control principles", it might be worth 
>> mentioning
>> TCP-like congestion control as well.  E.g., "TFRC, TCP-like 
>> congestion control,
>> or otherwise ensure...".
>
> I assume you mean DCCP CCID2 by "TCP-like congestion control?"
>
> If so, the first paragraph in Section 3 alreadys recommends that apps 
> use a congestion-controlled protocol instead of UDP, and points to 
> DCCP.
>
> Or am I misunderstanding?

I was just suggesting that in the sentence where you mention TFRC  "or 
otherwise..." as recommended
action, you also mention TCP-like congestion control, by name.  Just to 
make it clear that it
TFRC isn't necessarily being recommended over TCP-like congestion 
control, for the purposes of
this document.  (If the application is implementing it, it is better 
called "TCP-like congestion control
[CCID2]" instead of just "CCID2", I think.  Because CCID2 contains some 
DCCP-specific stuff that wouldn't
be included if an application was implementing it itself.)

So:  "TFRC, TCP-like congestion control (as in [CCID2]), or otherwise 
ensure..."

Does that make sense?

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/