headers
Gorry Fairhurst | 8 Sep 2007 19:27
Picon
Picon

Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?


The following 2 Internet Drafts were presented at the last IETF, and
we agreed that after this meeting to ask the IETF dccp WG whether they
would agree to adopting these as official work items:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/draft-kohler-dccp-ccid3-drops-01.txt EXP
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/ draft-floyd-dccp-ccid4-01.txt       PS

Documents accepted by the WG are intended to be finally published as
Standards-track RFC, according to the Charter milestone in:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dccp-charter.html

At this time, we are asking working group members and interested parties
to send comments/queries/objections to either the dccp WG mailing list
(above) or to me as a WG Chair (gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk). Comments on this
topic received before 21st September 2007 would be helpful in making
this decision.

In particular we are seeking feedback on any of:

* Have you read the current drafts?
* Is this work useful to you or your organisation?
* Do you have ideas/text/comments that you would like to contribute?
* Is this work ready for progression by this WG?

Please *do* reply if you would like to see this work proceed.

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst & Tom Phelan
(DCCP WG Co-Chair)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Ian McDonald | 9 Sep 2007 02:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

On 9/9/07, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> The following 2 Internet Drafts were presented at the last IETF, and
> we agreed that after this meeting to ask the IETF dccp WG whether they
> would agree to adopting these as official work items:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/draft-kohler-dccp-ccid3-drops-01.txt EXP
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/ draft-floyd-dccp-ccid4-01.txt       PS
>
> In particular we are seeking feedback on any of:
>
> * Have you read the current drafts?

Yes

> * Is this work useful to you or your organisation?

I think ccid4 would be very useful for VoIP as CCID2/3 face issues in
this area (as does TCP) due to their nature of congestion control, and
theoretically CCID4 looks good. There are at least two people working
on implementations for Linux to experiment with.

I think ccid3-drops is an incremental improvement and could prove
useful but have not delved into it further.

> * Do you have ideas/text/comments that you would like to contribute?

I've already sent any feedback previously if I had any (I can't remember!)

> * Is this work ready for progression by this WG?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ingemar Johansson S (LU/EAB | 10 Sep 2007 09:33
Picon
Favicon

RE: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

Hi

I can only comment on the CCID-4 draft and I support that it becomes a
working group item esp. as it has potential to becoem useful for VoIP. 
In a previous email to this group I gave an elaborate explanation of the
properties of modern speech/audio codecs and possibly I can contribute
with text in this direction and how CCID-4 can address these issues as
good as possible.
Is there any chance that the faster restart work becomes a part of
CCID-4 ?, asking because I believe the combination of the two might
become useful.

Regards
Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk] 
> Sent: den 8 september 2007 19:28
> To: dccp <at> ietf.org
> Cc: gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Subject: [dccp] Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on 
> ccid3-drops & ccid-4?
> 
> 
> The following 2 Internet Drafts were presented at the last 
> IETF, and we agreed that after this meeting to ask the IETF 
> dccp WG whether they would agree to adopting these as 
> official work items:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/draft-kohler-dccp-ccid3-drops-01.txt EXP
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/ draft-floyd-dccp-ccid4-01.txt       PS
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Gorry Fairhurst | 10 Sep 2007 09:58
Picon
Picon

Re: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

CCID-4 currently relies on CCID-3 (and, as I understand, CCID-3 loss), 
which in turn is built upon RFC3448...

Your question of whether a new CCID-4 should include FR is interesting, 
since I can see there may be merit in building a "VoIP"-friendly CC 
scheme on the more recent 3448.bis and/or FR.

I wonder what others think?

Best wishes,

Gorry

Ingemar Johansson S (LU/EAB) wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I can only comment on the CCID-4 draft and I support that it becomes a
> working group item esp. as it has potential to becoem useful for VoIP. 
> In a previous email to this group I gave an elaborate explanation of the
> properties of modern speech/audio codecs and possibly I can contribute
> with text in this direction and how CCID-4 can address these issues as
> good as possible.
> Is there any chance that the faster restart work becomes a part of
> CCID-4 ?, asking because I believe the combination of the two might
> become useful.
> 
> Regards
> Ingemar
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ian McDonald | 10 Sep 2007 10:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

On 9/10/07, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> CCID-4 currently relies on CCID-3 (and, as I understand, CCID-3 loss),
> which in turn is built upon RFC3448...
>
> Your question of whether a new CCID-4 should include FR is interesting,
> since I can see there may be merit in building a "VoIP"-friendly CC
> scheme on the more recent 3448.bis and/or FR.
>
> I wonder what others think?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry
>
I already discussed this previously and Sally added this to the 01 draft:

5.1.  Response to Idle and Application-limited Periods

   This is described in Section 5.1 of [RFC4342].  If Faster Restart is
   standardized in the IETF for TFRC [KFS07], then Faster Restart MAY be
   implemented in CCID4 without having to wait for an explicit update to
   this document.

Regards,

Ian
--

-- 
Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/
Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz
Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lars Eggert | 12 Sep 2007 17:38
Picon
Gravatar

consensus call: draft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization to WG item

Hi,

regarding http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-larsen-tsvwg-port- 
randomization, there was quite a bit of discussion around this draft  
during the summer. My personal take is that I saw more positive than  
negative comments, but I'd like to confirm this.

I'd hence like to start a consensus call on whether we want to take  
this document to be the basis for a standards-track work item in  
TSVWG that will recommend a randomization scheme for operating  
systems allocation of source ports. Because this scheme will cover  
all our transport protocols, I'm CC'ing the DCCP and TCPM working  
groups. This consensus call will run for two weeks, until September 28.

Please comment on the tsvwg <at> ietf.org list (reply-to set accordingly),  
even if you have already commented be on this draft in the past.

To make it easy for your chairs, please start your email by choosing  
ONE of the options below, followed by any detailed comments you'd  
like to make:

   (1) TSVWG should take on this work item, with this document as the  
basis
   (2) TSVWG should take on this work item, but NOT with this  
document as the basis
   (3) TSVWG should NOT take on this work item
   (4) don't care

Thanks,
Lars
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Sally Floyd | 13 Sep 2007 16:27
Picon

Re: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

Ingemar -

> I can only comment on the CCID-4 draft and I support that it becomes a
> working group item esp. as it has potential to becoem useful for VoIP.
> In a previous email to this group I gave an elaborate explanation of 
> the
> properties of modern speech/audio codecs and possibly I can contribute
> with text in this direction and how CCID-4 can address these issues as
> good as possible.

CCID-4 is a fairly straightforward discussion of how TFRC-SP is
implemented in DCCP, so I don't think that a general discussion of
modern codecs goes in CCID-4.

My inclination would be for it to go in a separate informational RFC
with a discussion of issues with CCID-4 in actual use.  It also makes
sense to me that a "deployment issues" document would have a
different time scale than the current CCID-4 specification document.
The CCID-4 specification document needs to be done first, so that
people can begin experimenting with CCID-4.  Then a
"deployment issues" RFC could progress more slowly, along with
the actual use of CCID-4.

Does that sound reasonable?

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/

(On vacation in northern Minnesota.)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Dan Wing | 18 Sep 2007 23:37
Picon
Favicon

RE: [tcpm] consensus call: draft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization to WGitem

I support this document becoming a TSVWG working group item.  

During its transition to such, I would like the authors to more clearly extend
the document's applicability to non-TCP protocols with port numbers.
Specifically, the document should include "UDP", "DCCP", and "SCTP" (as well
as TCP) in its introduction (and perhaps also in its abstract) so that anyone
developing or writing host requirements for those protocols will have a better
chance of finding this specification when working on those protocols.

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert <at> nokia.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:39 AM
> To: tsvwg WG
> Cc: tcpm <at> ietf.org; 
> draft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization <at> tools.ietf.org; DCCP 
> mailing list
> Subject: [tcpm] consensus call: 
> draft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization to WGitem
> 
> Hi,
> 
> regarding http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-larsen-tsvwg-port- 
> randomization, there was quite a bit of discussion around this draft  
> during the summer. My personal take is that I saw more positive than  
> negative comments, but I'd like to confirm this.
> 
> I'd hence like to start a consensus call on whether we want to take  
> this document to be the basis for a standards-track work item in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gorry Fairhurst | 19 Sep 2007 18:33
Picon
Picon

REMINDER: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?


The WG call for interest is still on-going, and will conclude at the end 
of this week. Please write your thoughts.

I see there has been some notes of support for progressing CCID-4 in the 
working group, but no discussion as far as I can see on CCID-3 drops. 
Specifically, this has been put forward as a STD-Track RFC, to modify 
CCID-3 AND also as a requirement for CCID-4. Is this a good idea? Do you 
plan to implement this? Could we live with JUST using this in CCID-4? 
Thoughts?

Gorry

-------- Original Message --------

The following 2 Internet Drafts were presented at the last IETF, and
we agreed that after this meeting to ask the IETF dccp WG whether they
would agree to adopting these as official work items:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/draft-kohler-dccp-ccid3-drops-01.txt EXP
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/ draft-floyd-dccp-ccid4-01.txt       PS

Documents accepted by the WG are intended to be finally published as
Standards-track RFC, according to the Charter milestone in:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dccp-charter.html

At this time, we are asking working group members and interested parties
to send comments/queries/objections to either the dccp WG mailing list
(above) or to me as a WG Chair (gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk). Comments on this
topic received before 21st September 2007 would be helpful in making
this decision.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ian McDonald | 19 Sep 2007 23:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: REMINDER: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

On 9/20/07, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> The WG call for interest is still on-going, and will conclude at the end
> of this week. Please write your thoughts.
>
> I see there has been some notes of support for progressing CCID-4 in the
> working group, but no discussion as far as I can see on CCID-3 drops.
> Specifically, this has been put forward as a STD-Track RFC, to modify
> CCID-3 AND also as a requirement for CCID-4. Is this a good idea? Do you
> plan to implement this? Could we live with JUST using this in CCID-4?
> Thoughts?
>
> Gorry
>
Well I've been talking about CCID4 with two implementors during the
last 24 hours and they were mentioning implementing the CCID3 drops
there for it.

I personally, don't see a great need for it for CCID3 unless it were
to replace the existing mechanisms for loss detection rather than
supplement them - it sure would make the code simpler! Having said
that, it would have to be reliable delivery and it would break
existing implementations.

Ian
--

-- 
Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/
Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz
Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane