[Iccrg] ICCRG experimental CC reviews

[Lachlan Andrew]

Greetings Wes,

On 28/03/2008, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] <wesley.m.eddy at nasa.gov> wrote:
>  We have been looking at Compound TCP since
>  last summer, but this review incorporates several independent efforts at
>  implementation, experimentation, and simulation (i.e. not just document
>  review).

There were many stylistic issues the the CTCP draft, like not
specifying parameter values,  the SHOUD/MUST/... terminology, what is
normative vs informative..

It would be good to write up a "how-to" for drafts, specifying what
format the drafts should have, and what pitfalls to avoid.  That
should speed the process up for future proposals.

>  The short review may have to hedge its conclusions with
>  a list of unknowns, but it would specifically identify these, whereas
>  the long review may have less unknowns.  As an example, in the Compound
>  TCP review, we have an open question about how it is affected in
>  wireless environments.

Once we get the "TCP evaluation test suite" more polished, that may
help in terms of specifying minimal testing.  (e.g., it specifies a
wireless scenario to be tested.)

>  As a TCPM participant myself, I personally prefer the "short" review to
>  keep proposals to TCPM from spending more time in ICCRG than they do in
>  TCPM :).

I don't think it should be short at the expense of making decisions on
drafts which are ambiguous in major details (like ranges of parameter
values, or which options are part of the "actual" proposal).

Guidelines would help.  Perhaps we should specify that the draft
should point to independent tests (on a non-buggy implementation).  I
don't think we should mandate independent re-implementation, but it
would be good to encourage having at least one open-source
implementation.

Cheers,
Lachlan

-- 
Lachlan Andrew  Dept of Computer Science, Caltech
1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA
Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820    Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603
http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan