[Iccrg] Soliciting input for cc. bibliography

[Stephen Suryaputra]

Hi Michael,

I think such a document is a very good idea. I've been following this
list on and off, and congestion control is not my main area. So, this
will help me beat the learning curve.

In regard to the concern about the size, maybe we can put the document
into sections and solicit reviews individually.

Stephen

On 14 Jun 2006 14:57:18 +0200, Michael Welzl <michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at> wrote:
> 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
> point.
>
>
> > > > 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!
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iccrg mailing list
> Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
>