[Iccrg] Fwd: agenda planning for ICCRG in Anaheim

[Michael Welzl]

(chair hat off)


On Feb 21, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:

> John and I went around on this for a bit in a private conversation,
> where I argued against some of the details of his position.  However,
> Wes's comments about the history made me realize that I actually very
> strongly agree with a slightly weaker, conditional version of "delay
> indicates congestion".
>
> Given that:
>
> 1) When delay sensing works, it generally provides better, more
> precise, congestion control with less disruption to other applications
> than does loss based congestion control.
>
> 2) Delay sensing does not work in all environments and must be
> considered to be an optimization that is conditionally applied in
> addition to loss based congestion control.
>
> 3) For the vast majority of Internet users (e.g. home users behind
> slow, over buffered access links and perhaps wireless users) #1
> applies extremely strongly.
>
> Therefor: all stacks should include a secondary congestion control
> mechanism that detects the delay caused by large queues in the network
> and regulates their congestion window accordingly.

I strongly agree with this;


> It may be an appropriate future work item of the ICCRG and IETF to
> attempt to standardize such a mechanism.   In the short term it would
> be sufficient to merely agree on a statement of principle or intent.

- attempting to standardize: isn't that exactly what LEDBAT is doing?

Cheers,
Michael