On 10/23/2013 3:12 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Dear all, > > We would like to give time to the Transport Area to discuss any > potential need to evolve the IETF transport protocols. > > There are a number of proposals discussed in the IETF and outside of the > IETF on changing parts of TCP (e.g. laminar TCP [1]), reusing parts of > TCP (e.g., TCP Minion [2]), completely new transport protocols (e.g. > QUIC [3]), and also discussions about the congestion control approach to > be used (e.g., delay-based [4], LEDBAT [5]). > > (We are fully aware that this list of proposals is incomplete) >
One other protocol that has been floating around outside the IETF for awhile is Saratoga, though we've talked about it a little in TSVWG and there are a number of internet-drafts: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-tsvwg-saratoga/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-tsvwg-saratoga-congestion-control/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eddy-tsvwg-saratoga-tfrc/ There are several interesting things about Saratoga related to transport protocol evolution, so I thought it might be another interesting datapoint in the field. Off the top of my head, relevant features are: - runs over UDP for deployability - can run over highly asymmetric paths (e.g. 1000s-to-1 b/w ratio) - flexibly implements different congestion control algorithms - copes with extremely high latency or unidirectional connectivity > Let Spencer and me know at [email protected] if you are interested > in contributing actively to the session. If it's of interest, I could briefly present the state of Saratoga (e.g. 5 minutes), and possible future plans. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems
