> > 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
