Hi Sally, > I am assuming that this would best go in dccp instead of tsvwg...
I think that's what we decided a few meetings ago... Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:05 PM > To: Phelan, Tom > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [dccp] Preliminary agenda for Montreal > > >Here's a preliminary agenda for our meeting in Montreal. > >Additions/changes/comments appreciated. > > >4. Potential New WG Items > > * DTLS over DCCP, draft-phelan-dccp-dtls-00 (Tom, 10 min) > > * RTP over DCCP, draft-perkins-dccp-rtp (Colin, 15min) > > * DCCP Mobility, draft-kohler-dccp-mobility (?, 10 minutes) > > I have another potential new WG item that I would like to talk about: > TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification, > draft-floyd-rfc3448bis-00.txt. > > Five or ten minutes would be fine. Sorry for not getting this to > you earlier. > > I am assuming that this would best go in dccp instead of tsvwg... > > - Sally > > From the draft: > > Changes from RFC 3448: > > * Incorporated changes in the RFC 3448 errata: > > - "If the sender does not receive a feedback report for > four round trip times, it cuts its sending rate in half." > ("Two" changed to "four", for consistency with the rest > of the document. Reported by Joerg Widmer). > > - "If the nofeedback timer expires when the sender does not > yet have an RTT sample, and has not yet received any > feedback from the receiver, or when p == 0,..." > (Added "or when p == 0,", reported by Wim Heirman). > > - In Section 5.5, changed: > for (i = 1 to n) { DF_i = 1; } > to: > for (i = 0 to n) { DF_i = 1; } > Reported by Michele R. > > * Changed RFC 3448 to correspond to the larger initial windows > specified in RFC 3390. This includes the following: > > - Incorporated Section 5.1 from [RFC4342], saying that > when reducing the sending rate after an idle period, don't > reduce the sending rate below the initial sending rate. > > - Change for a datalimited sender: > When the sender has been datalimited, the sender doesn't > let the receive rate limit it to a sending rate less than > the initial rate. > > - Small change to slow-start: > Changed so that for the first feedback packet received, > or for the first feedback packet received after an idle > period, the receive rate is not used to limit the > sending rate. This is because the receiver might not yet > have seen an entire window of data. > > * Clarified how the average loss interval is calculated when > the receiver has not yet seen eight loss intervals. > > * Discussed more about estimating the average segment size: > > - For initializing the loss history after the first loss event, > either the receiver knows the sender's value for s, or > the receiver uses the throughput equation for X_pps and does > not need to know an estimate for s. > > - Added a discussion about estimating the average segment size > s in Section 4.1 on "Measuring the Segment Size". > > - Changed "packet size" to "segment size".
