IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only rate-adaptive for DiffServ

James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> Tue, 16 July 2013 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79EA21E81AD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iO8DoVSWnh6v for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF3021E81A8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=531; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373954881; x=1375164481; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:mime-version; bh=WPGYfn/BKNYRBsII5V4LMPY6RCLJPCmFIaAKVboCKWc=; b=iY/ZpelEgWzGj+ixFaUc4RG95CBZvSS56EKWh6sbaQa5uWZhZUIwttJD 3PSALSe5P2GZ3GTQwNMPFaUzubxcxYig4F//jUvSm4efvwsiAVmtfjJKc xFKmQ0cLxKnhQMYK1dOGOm8DcXtkTcYbogYkrzBEE+IfUiEjNLNzJjoWC o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAFAGzi5FGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwY0gw7ALhZ0gmICViUVHwpgiAcMlWKgTJABg2IDiSegAoMwHg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,674,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="235293665"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2013 06:08:01 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-WS.cisco.com ([10.89.8.39]) (authenticated bits=0) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6G680RY026646 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:08:00 GMT
Message-Id: <201307160608.r6G680RY026646@rcdn-core-4.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:07:59 -0500
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Authenticated-User: jmpolk
Subject: [tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only rate-adaptive for DiffServ
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:08:05 -0000

(as an author)

Toerless and I put together a draft about legacy rate-adaptation 
based only on loss vs. what RMCAT is looking to (for RTCWEB), which 
is based on delay and loss.  Here's the URL.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-delay-vs-loss-ds-service-classes-00.txt

It's more raw than we had in mind, but we believe this is necessary, 
based on implementation experience and what users and customers have 
in their networks, or are planning on having in their networks soon.

James & Toerless

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email