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

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Bob, I just wanted to confirm.

I prefer Reno-compatible over considerate or accommodating, but I'm open to
other terms.  Also, I believe Neal used the term Reno-compatible first in
the context of BBRv2 gain cycling, but I could be wrong.

Thanks, Ian

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:19 PM Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Neal,
>
> On 09/03/2021 02:35, Neal Cardwell 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?
>
>
> This one is getting closer.
>
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> neal
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>