[Iccrg] Soliciting input for cc. bibliography
michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at
Wed Jun 14 13:57:18 BST 2006
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:42, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:36:01PM +0200, Michael Welzl wrote:
> > > For the CC-related RFCs, the TCP Roadmap already covers this ground (and
> > > hopefully does so pretty well). To me it does not seem valuable for the
> > > ICCRG to spend a lot of time rehashing this, or asking participants to
> > > review another, different, book report of this same material. The
> > > relevent roadmap portions are:
> > > http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/2006-March/000064.html
> > As much as I like the roadmap, it is by no means a complete
> > overview of congestion control related RFCs - it's strictly
> > about TCP, with no mention of, e.g., multicast congestion
> > control, DCCP, Active Queue Management (RFC2309), link layer
> > interactions with congestion control...
> > The way I looked at this document is that it would give
> > an overview of congestion control work in the IETF *except*
> > for the things that are in the roadmap already (and that
> > it would of course point to the roadmap as the main reference
> > on anything TCP related) - and this is more than you might
> > expect - see my previous post:
> > http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/2006-March/000066.html
> > for an incomplete list.
> Ah, in that case, I do think this would be valuable to work on. The list
> of RFCs in that link contains a lot of overlap with the roadmap, and I
> guess that was what confused me.
Sorry for that! This is just what I got by taking all the RFC
and Internet-draft references from my book and removing
everything that I considered "Standard TCP" - I didn't compare
all these references, the list was just meant as a starting
> > > On the other hand, a document that itemizes and describes the more
> > > radical congestion control algorithms would be valuable, and I think the
> > > group should concentrate on this deliverable. To my knowledge, the only
> > > such algorithms that are currently described in RFCs are HighSpeed
> > > and Limited Slow-Start, so the TCP Roadmap does not even begin to cover
> > > this area.
> > Do you still think that this should all be compiled
> > in a single document in the light of what I said above?
> I don't think it matters. Smaller documents might generate more reviews
> from the group than a single giant document, but I don't think it's
> significant one way or the other,
Ok - others? I'd just like to get some feedback before making
this decision. The group is surprisingly silent. Speak up!
More information about the Iccrg