From: "SCHARF, Michael" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18 Date: September 8, 2011 3:36:20 AM EDT To: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
A stop-and-wait protocol with a single outstanding message (not too large, i. e., not significantly exceeding 3-5 KB) and adaptive RTO including back-off would be rather safe to use and sufficiently TCP friendly, according to RFC 5405. A corresponding rephrasing of these sections might address most of my concerns regarding congestion control. On that issue, would it be better to explicitly state section 3.1.1 of 5405 for other non stop-and-wait senders rather than TFRC itself? I'm not quite sure why we were pointed at TFRC---it may have actually predated 5405, but that once you go beyond stop-and-wait, 3.1.1 is the section that applies (as 3.1.3 case 2 points back to 3.1.1). The document should probably reference RFC 5405, as the guidelines are obviously relevant for RELOAD in general. The first sentence of Section 3.1.1 in RFC 5405 states that TFRC or something equivalent SHOULD be used once going beyond stop-and-wait. So, finally it comes down to TFRC whatever reference you use. IMHO the simplest solution for moving this forward would be just to specify stop-and-wait and to postpone considerations regarding a TCP-friendly transport mechanism with better performance to a future document. Michael
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
