Hi, On 2010-1-20, at 16:17, Michael Welzl wrote: > This draft is step 1 of a 2-step plan, which emulates > what happened with TFRC: first, we want to publish > a general specification of the congestion control > mechanism. Second, we want to publish a CCID > specification for DCCP (which we haven't yet written, > but intend to).
I note that CCIDs 248-254 are reserved for experimental use, so there's not an immediate need to publish a WG document here either, if the intent is to enable experimentation. We'd also need to bake MulTFRC for a bit. We did find a number of issues with RFC3448 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5348#section-9) that we fixed in RFC5348 five years later, and those again lead to changes in the CCIDs. We'd be signing up to do quite a bit of analysis and experimentation if we want to get MulTFRC and its CCID similarly stable. > At least the latter should be brought here, > I suppose, and since it seemed to fit the charter (and > the chairs agreed about this), I'm proposing it here. Yes, it could fit under the current "modular extensions to DCCP" work item. The key question, as always, is: does the community have the interest and energy to actively develop MulTFRC and add a CCID for it to DCCP? > Additionally, this group doesn't seem to be very busy. Which is why I was hoping to declare victory and close it sooner rather than later... Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
