draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-01.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-02.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Floyd Internet Engineering Task Force S. Floyd
Internet-Draft M. Allman Internet-Draft M. Allman
Intended status: Best Current Practice ICIR / ICSI Intended status: Best Current Practice ICIR / ICSI
Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms
draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-01.txt draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 53 skipping to change at page 1, line 53
schemes in the global Internet has possible ramifications to schemes in the global Internet has possible ramifications to
both the traffic using the new congestion control and to traffic both the traffic using the new congestion control and to traffic
using the currently standardized congestion control. Therefore, using the currently standardized congestion control. Therefore,
the IETF must proceed with caution when dealing with alternate the IETF must proceed with caution when dealing with alternate
congestion control proposals. The goal of this document is to congestion control proposals. The goal of this document is to
provide guidance for considering alternate congestion control provide guidance for considering alternate congestion control
algorithms within the IETF. algorithms within the IETF.
TO BE DELETED BY THE RFC EDITOR UPON PUBLICATION: TO BE DELETED BY THE RFC EDITOR UPON PUBLICATION:
Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-01.txt:
* Very minor wording tweaks gathered during WGLC.
Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt: Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt:
* Added text to the introduction to clarify the relationship of this * Added text to the introduction to clarify the relationship of this
document and RFC 2914. In addition, added a requirement (0) in document and RFC 2914. In addition, added a requirement (0) in
section 3 that says new congestion control schemes that section 3 that says new congestion control schemes that
significantly diverge from the principles in RFC 2914 must explain significantly diverge from the principles in RFC 2914 must explain
this divergence. this divergence.
Changes from draft-floyd-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt: Changes from draft-floyd-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt:
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
community when evaluating whether a proposal is appropriate for community when evaluating whether a proposal is appropriate for
publication in the RFC series. publication in the RFC series.
The guidelines in this document are intended to be consistent with The guidelines in this document are intended to be consistent with
the congestion control principles from [RFC2914] of preventing the congestion control principles from [RFC2914] of preventing
congestion collapse, considering fairness, and optimizing the flow's congestion collapse, considering fairness, and optimizing the flow's
own performance in terms of throughput, delay, and loss. [RFC2914] own performance in terms of throughput, delay, and loss. [RFC2914]
also discusses the goal of avoiding a congestion control `arms race' also discusses the goal of avoiding a congestion control `arms race'
among competing transport protocols. among competing transport protocols.
This document does not give hard-and-fast rules for what makes for This document does not give hard-and-fast requirements
an appropriate congestion control scheme. Rather, the document for an appropriate congestion control scheme. Rather, the document
provides a set of criteria that should be considered and weighed by provides a set of criteria that should be considered and weighed by
the IETF in the context of each proposal. The high-order criteria the IETF in the context of each proposal. The high-order criteria
for any new proposal is that a serious scientific study of the pros for any new proposal is that a serious scientific study of the pros
and cons of the proposal needs to have been done such that the IETF and cons of the proposal needs to have been done such that the IETF
has a well rounded set of information to consider. has a well rounded set of information to consider.
After initial studies, we encourage authors to write a specification After initial studies, we encourage authors to write a specification
of their proposals for publication in the RFC series to allow others of their proposals for publication in the RFC series to allow others
to concretely understand and investigate the wealth of proposals in to concretely understand and investigate the wealth of proposals in
this space. this space.
skipping to change at page 8, line 6 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
4. Minimum Requirements 4. Minimum Requirements
This section suggests minimum requirements for a document to This section suggests minimum requirements for a document to
be approved as Experimental with approval for widespread be approved as Experimental with approval for widespread
deployment in the global Internet. We note that this is not deployment in the global Internet. We note that this is not
a binding document with fixed and unchanging requirements, a binding document with fixed and unchanging requirements,
but simply a document targeted for approval as Best Current but simply a document targeted for approval as Best Current
Practice. Practice.
Minimum requirements for approval for widespread deploy include Minimum requirements for approval for widespread deployment include
guideline (1) on assessing the impact on standard congestion guideline (1) on assessing the impact on standard congestion
control. Minimum requirements also include guideline (3) on control. Minimum requirements also include guideline (3) on
investigation of the proposed mechanism in a range of environments, investigation of the proposed mechanism in a range of environments,
and guideline (4) on protection against congestion collapse. In and guideline (4) on protection against congestion collapse. In
order to be approved for widespread deployment, the proposed order to be approved for widespread deployment, the proposed
mechanism will also have to meet guideline (8), discussing whether mechanism will also have to meet guideline (8), discussing whether
the mechanism allows for incremental deployment. the mechanism allows for incremental deployment.
For other guidelines, i.e., (2), (5), (6), and (7), evidence For other guidelines, i.e., (2), (5), (6), and (7), evidence
that the proposed mechanism has significantly more problems that the proposed mechanism has significantly more problems
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
4 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/