On 01/20/2014 02:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:30 PM, David Collier-Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Section, paragraph (page) >> ======= ========= ==== >> 3.1 para 1 (p8) >> We call a flow "TCP-friendly" when it has a congestion response that >> approximates the average response expected of a TCP flow. One >> example method of a TCP-friendly scheme is the TCP-Friendly Rate >> Control algorithm [RFC5348]. In this document, the term is used more >> generally to describe this and other algorithms that meet these >> goals. >> >> >> I'd move this definition into section 3.1, as it's first paragraph. The last >> paragraph of section enumerates the three different types, it's legitimate >> to defer the definition until one paragraph later, and make it easier to >> understand a TCP-friendly flow >> >> I have a question about the phrase "TCP-friendly". Responsive and >> unresponsive are clearly applicable to bot TCP and UDP flows, which you >> first discuss in section 3.2, just below. It appears you're discussing it >> as a general "congestion friendliness", of which RFC 5348 is an example, and >> as if the reasoning can apply to UDP, which you first discuss in the >> following section, 3.2 >> >> If this is correct, you may wish to not use TCP in the term, as it appears >> to limit it to TCP, and not UDP implementation that have improved congestion >> avoidance. > IMO, "responsive" isn't correct. > > TCP-friendly also means friendly to TCP, i.e., there are numerous responsive > variants of TCP congestion control that are not particularly friendly to the > current recommended standard. > > Typically, when we mean congestion responsive we say that; when we say "TCP > friendly", we mean that it gets no more than a similar proportion of > resources as the current standard TCP when competing for resources. > >> Regrettably, "congestion friendly" is not quite what we'd want (;-)) May I >> suggest "congestion-resistant"? > I don't think that's what's sought here, ultimately. There are a nearly > infinite number of congestion resistant solutions that are not practical for > use in the current Internet because of how they interact with the current TCP > standards. > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > Excellent, thanks!
--dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest [email protected] | -- Mark Twain (416) 223-8968 _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
