[Iccrg] Proposal for ICCRG operations
john at jlc.net
Sat Feb 4 21:13:36 GMT 2006
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman <shivkuma at ecse.rpi.edu> wrote:
> BTW, what are the directions are we really interested in for this group?
This is a very good question. (I suspect different folks come with
different preferred directions.)
> - long BD products?
I think we need to tackle the bandwidth-delay problem.
> - loss tolerance in wireless?
I don't think we can tackle this directly until we decouple
congestion-awareness from packet loss (which I believe we should do).
> - more robustness to variance in underlying links?
I don't know what the level of interest here is. Personally I'd like
to rate links on bandwidth and latency, with expected variance in each.
> - fairness considerations (max-min/processor sharing vs proportional etc)?
This one is a bit scary. I'd prefer to defer fairness flamewars until
we've got some actual algorithms in use, being actively measured.
> Is there a priorization of relevant concerns? I only saw a broad wish list
> in the original talks...
In research, traditional "prioritization" doesn't apply: work of interest
to individuals with time available gets done; other work doesn't.
John Leslie <john at jlc.net>
More information about the Iccrg