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

[Sally Floyd <[e-mail]>]

>> 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?)

Yep.
So it could just say:
"TFRC, TCP-like congestion control, or otherwise ensure..."
if that seems better to you.

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