Reminder of WGLC for draft-ietf-DCCP-tfrc-voip-05.txt (to close 24:00 9th October 2006)

A reminer that the WGLC is currently on-going - anyone
interested in 
this I-D is welcome to send questions and requests for
clarification 
within the WGLC period.

Best wishes,

Gorry & Tom
(DCCP WG Chairs)

-------- Original Message --------

Dear DCCP WG,

The Chairs would like to say sorry for the long delay in
processing the
I-D below, following its WGLC. We now intend to progress
this.

While preparing the write-up of this I-D (that will request
publication
as an Experimental RFC) a number of issues have been found
that would
best be corrected (we will send these to the list). The
authors have
therefore been requested to make a new revision of the I-D.

The current I-D has expired, but is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg
/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip/draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-05
.txt

To enable this new I-D to be as correct as possible, We wish
to allow
others to also ask for clarifications, and raise any issues
they have.
This message therfore starts a new WGLC for this I-D.

This WGLC will close at midnight on:

9th October 2006.

Best wishes,

Gorry & Tom
(DCCP WG Chairs)

----

Summary

     This document is a chartered item of the DCCP WG.

     It proposes a mechanism for further experimentation,
but
     not for widespread deployment at this time in the
global Internet.

     TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) is a congestion
control mechanism
     for unicast flows operating in a best-effort Internet
environment
     [RFC 3448]. TFRC was intended for applications that use
a fixed

     packet size, and was designed to be reasonably fair
when competing
     for bandwidth with TCP connections using the same
packet size.  This
     document proposes TFRC-SP, a Small-Packet (SP) variant
of TFRC, that
     is designed for applications that send small packets. 
The design
     goal for TFRC-SP is to achieve the same bandwidth in
bps as a TCP
     flow using packets of up to 1500 bytes.  TFRC-SP
enforces a Min
     Interval of 10 ms between data packets, to prevent a
single flow
     from sending small packets arbitrarily frequently.

     Flows using TFRC-SP compete reasonably fairly with
large-packet TCP
     and TFRC flows in environments where large-packet flows
and small-
     packet flows experience similar packet drop rates. 
However, in
     environments where small-packet flows experience lower
packet drop
     rates than large-packet flows (e.g., with Drop-Tail
queues in units
     of bytes), TFRC-SP can receive considerably more than
its share of
     the bandwidth.

On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:07, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> A reminer that the WGLC is currently on-going - anyone
interested  
> in this I-D is welcome to send questions and requests
for  
> clarification within the WGLC period.

Sorry for being a bit late, but these are all nits anyway.

Lars

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 10:
 >     is designed for applications that send small
packets.  The design
 >     goal for TFRC-SP is to achieve the same bandwidth
in bps as a TCP
 >     flow using packets of up to 1500 bytes.  TFRC-SP
enforces a Min
 >     Interval of 10 ms between data packets, to prevent
a single flow
 >     from sending small packets arbitrarily frequently.

   Nit: Maybe expand bps and Min Interval.


Section 2., paragraph 9:
 >     6.3.1 of RFC 3448 specifies that the TFRC receiver
initialize the
 >     loss history after the first loss event by
calculating the loss

   Nit: s/initialize/initializes/


Section 4.1., paragraph 7:
 >     This equation uses an RTO of $4R$, and assumes
that the TCP

   Nit: s/$4R$/4*R/


Section 4.1., paragraph 12:
 >               Table 1: Response Function for TCP and
TFRC.
 >         Sending Rate in KBps, as a Function of Packet
Drop Rate.

   KBps or Kbps? (also elsewhere in the document)


Section 4.1., paragraph 15:
 >     The calculations for Tables 1 and 2 use the packet
loss rate  
for an
 >     approximation for the loss event rate p.  (The
scripts for  
producing
 >     these tables are available at
 >     "http://
www.icir.org/tfrc/voipsims.html".  There is also a 

pointer
 >     to the document "Graphs for
draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-05",  
which has
 >     graphs for the tables in this document.)

   URL was down when I tried. Also, might want to move this
into a
   reference?


Section 4.1., paragraph 15:
 >     TFRC-SP flow usinsg the same sending rate in KBps
as the TCP flow

   Nit: s/usinsg/using/


Section 5., paragraph 2:
 >     sending rate of 64 kbps would be required to
terminate or suspend

   Nit: s/kbps/Kbps/


Section 7., paragraph 0:
 >     7.  Simulation Results

   Suggest to move this section to an appendix, is
tangential to the
   description/discussion of the mechanism itself.


Section 12., paragraph 19:
 >     [RFC 2434] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand. 
Guidelines for  
Writing an
 >         IANA Considerations Section in RFCs.  RFC
2434.

   Unused Reference: 'RFC 2434' is defined on line 1704, but
not
   referenced

-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network
Laboratories

Lars -

On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:07, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>> A reminer that the WGLC is currently on-going -
anyone interested in 
>> this I-D is welcome to send questions and requests
for clarification 
>> within the WGLC period.
>
> Sorry for being a bit late, but these are all nits
anyway.

Many thanks for the feedback.  I have taken care of all of
your 
comments.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/