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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-3-7, at 19:47, ext Sally Floyd wrote:
>> 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?

I'm not sure it goes with the flow of the argument. The document says  
in in the first paragraph of Section 3 that apps should really be  
using an existing congestion controlled transport instead of UDP, and  
includes DCCP as an example of what to use (I could point to specific  
CCIDs here).

The rest of Section 3 applies to apps that for some reason chose not  
to use one of the congestion-controlled protocols, including DCCP,  
and instead chose to use UDP. These apps could still implement TFRC  
for UDP.

Is your suggestion to point out that they could also implement a TCP- 
like windowing mechanism instead of TFRC? (In which case calling it  
CCID2 is confusing, because that is tied to the use of DCCP, no?)

Thanks,
Lars