Hi,

On 2009-4-6, at 6:07, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
We have the option of simpy saying "use TFRC."  That will be good
enough performance, and require relatively little specification since
TSV has already put a lot of work into it.  It's also a bit
complicated.  A lot more complicated than is really needed for most
p2psip implementations/deployments.

So the motivation of the other options was to provide simpler options
that are going to provide enough performance for many/most
deployments.

I'd strongly urge you to use TFRC rather than rolling your own scheme. Don't underestimate the validation effort that is required to ensure that a congestion control scheme is safe to deploy. This has all been done for TFRC, and it must be done for any new scheme.

Lars

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

Reply via email to