I filed an issue for rolling RMCAT into this charter: https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/issues/2
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:37 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1 Jul 2022, at 17:30, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I wish rmcat was not considered out of scope in this charter. The > > internet is a communications network, not just a file transfer > > network. > > The RMCAT WG still exits and can take work on standardising congestion > control algorithms for interactive real-time communications, if needed. > However, the working group activities have declined over the last couple of > years and I am not sure how much interest/energy is there for new work (in > genera)l for the real-time interactive traffic. The working group has > published materials that can useful if discussions pops up in relevant > forums/working groups. > > I wish the congestion control algorithms RMCAT produced were used widely > in WebRTC and other RTP based real-time communication systems. That is not > the case yet. This also shows the fact that there should be honest interest > not only in developing good congestion control algorithms but also > deploying it. > > > > > > Also I find measurement tools that depend on obsolete 00's thinking - > > like owamp - and rtp - very out of date when we should be thinking > > about latency > > and jitter in the sub 8ms range - if we're really serious about > > building a metaverse. These days I am working with very fine grained > > (3ms - preferably 1ms but no cloudy machine I have access to can > > actually reliably generate packets from userspace on a 1ms interval) > > active measurement data. > > > > As an example of what we learn from inspecting a network at 3ms > > detail, see: > https://forum.openwrt.org/t/cake-w-adaptive-bandwidth/108848/3142 > > for some current plots and a plotting script - of starlink's behaviors > > using the irtt tool. > > > > I was thinking about doing a talk (in iccrg? here?) on how we think > > about network traffic at too large a granularity (mbits/sec) in favor > > of "steady kbit/ms" or "steady packets over ms" (SPOM). > > I would be interest in this kind of talks. If you have proposals we can > pick venues. > > > //Zahed > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:28 AM Martin Duke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Transport Enthusiasts, > >> (bcc: TCPM, QUIC, and ICCRG) > >> > >> Zahed and I would like to invite you to the TSVAREA meeting at IETF 114 > (Monday 13:30 local time), where we will be having a more action-oriented > discussion than usual. > >> > >> TL;DR the way we do congestion control standards is written down in RFC > 5033, and is no longer aligned with how congestion control innovation > happens or the family of transport protocols that use standard congestion > control. The IETF is largely irrelevant to new congestion control > deployments. So we'll discuss a proposal to fix it. This meeting will have > some BoF-like elements but it is not formally a BoF. > >> > >> In consultation with several stakeholders, we've devised a strategy to > address this: > >> > >> * Colin Perkins, IRTF chair, has agreed to add at least one chair to > ICCRG (I'm sure Colin would welcome volunteer candidates!). While retaining > its hosting presentations role, there will be renewed emphasis on serving > as a forum to produce experimental RFCs, with a charter update if necessary. > >> > >> * The Transport ADs are going to consider chartering a new IETF working > group to update the administrative framework for congestion control > standardization, and potentially adopt any proposals that are sufficiently > mature for the standards track. We've formulated a proposed charter. Please > consider it a starting point for discussion. > >> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-89f2a2da742ddce8&q=1&e=e6a9d612-3bda-4815-aac4-b5fd39764cb5&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmartinduke%2Fcongestion-control-charter%2F > >> I ask you to review this document before attending. It answers many of > the questions you may already have. > >> > >> In Philadelphia, we hope to answer as many of the following questions > as possible, in order: > >> * Is there rough consensus on the problem to solve? > >> * Are the deliverables right? > >> * Are there people willing to take responsibility for those > deliverables? (The meeting is over if the answer is "no") > >> * Does the proposed charter need changes? > >> * Is anyone especially excited to chair this WG? > >> > >> Please come to Philadelphia having thought about these questions and > prepared to answer them. You are also welcome to share thoughts on the > tsv-area list; all other recipients have been Bcced: so that the rest of > the thread will go to only that list. Subscribe if you want to track the > discussion. > >> > >> Although charter wordsmithing is somewhat premature, you are also > welcome to file issues and PRs on the github linked above. > >> > >> See you there, > >> Martin and Zahed > >> Your friendly Transport ADs > > > > > > > > -- > > FQ World Domination pending: > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-52d7a4659d6bb6c6&q=1&e=e6a9d612-3bda-4815-aac4-b5fd39764cb5&u=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cerowrt.org%2Fpost%2Fstate_of_fq_codel%2F > > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > >
