[Iccrg] Proposal for ICCRG operations

[Aaron Falk]

Hi Steven, Keshav-

On Feb 3, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Steven Low wrote:

> Your proposed steps make a lot of sense.  It seems a little too
> aggressive - great if we can make it.

I agree.  At this point, I'd say it is more important to focus on the  
steps than the schedule, though.

> In particular, Phases 2
> and 3 on developing a solutions will likely take more time if
> the goal is not just to sort out what proposals are available
> today and understand their tradeoffs, but to come up with something
> that is significantly better than the various proposals available
> today (each of which has limitations in some scenarios).
>
> I think a TCP benchmarking suite will be a very helpful tool to
> guide us in this process.  It will be useful especially in your
> Phase 3 to evaluate various proposals, but just thinking through
> the design and implementation of a good benchmark lends clarity
> to issues of Internet congestion control and metrics to optimize
> against.
>
> Aaron Falk is chairing a panel at a conference to discuss this
> very issue.  Hopefully, we wll hear from the participants soon
> on their thoughts.

So, the panel isn't for several hours (at PFLDnet 2006) but one thing  
that has become clear to me so far is that this community has not  
converged on metrics and scenarios for evaluation.  The TMRG work is  
really needed to make progress.

--aaron