Is that a fatal flaw, or merely an expression of concern, needing some text?
Brian From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:51 PM To: Saverio Mascolo Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Solution space for fragmentation, congestion control and reliability I will note that TFRC was designed for long-lived streams (e.g., media streams), which probably differs a bit from our typical application in P2PSIP, where somewhat random pairs of nodes exchange data objects of a few dozen to a few hundred packets. For example, establishing a "fair" rate is not trivial under those conditions, and has high error margins. Henning On Apr 6, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Saverio Mascolo wrote: hi lars, On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, 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 is anyone aware of applications using TFRC? s _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
