draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-01.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-00.txt draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-01.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-00.txt:
* Added text to the introduction to clarify the relationship of this
document and RFC 2914. In addition, added a requirement (0) in
section 3 that says new congestion control schemes that
significantly diverge from the principles in RFC 2914 must explain
this divergence.
Changes from draft-floyd-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt: Changes from draft-floyd-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt:
* Changed the name to draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt. * Changed the name to draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-00.txt.
* Added a sentence about robustness with various * Added a sentence about robustness with various
queueing algorithms in the routers, especially both RED queueing algorithms in the routers, especially both RED
and DropTail. Suggestion from Jitendra Padhye. and DropTail. Suggestion from Jitendra Padhye.
* Added a sentence about robustness with the routers, * Added a sentence about robustness with the routers,
middleboxes, and such deployed in the current Internet. middleboxes, and such deployed in the current Internet.
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document provides guidelines for the IETF to use when This document provides guidelines for the IETF to use when
evaluating suggested congestion control algorithms that evaluating suggested congestion control algorithms that
significantly differ from the general congestion control principles significantly differ from the general congestion control principles
outlined in [RFC2914]. The guidance is intended to be useful to outlined in [RFC2914]. The guidance is intended to be useful to
authors proposing alternate congestion control and for the IETF authors proposing alternate congestion control and for the IETF
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 congestion control principles from [RFC2914] of preventing
congestion collapse, considering fairness, and optimizing the flow's
own performance in terms of throughput, delay, and loss. [RFC2914]
also discusses the goal of avoiding a congestion control `arms race'
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 rules for what makes for
an appropriate congestion control scheme. Rather, the document 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 56
3. Guidelines 3. Guidelines
As noted above, authors are expected to do a well-rounded As noted above, authors are expected to do a well-rounded
evaluation of the pros and cons of proposals brought to the IETF. evaluation of the pros and cons of proposals brought to the IETF.
The following are guidelines to help authors and the IETF community. The following are guidelines to help authors and the IETF community.
Concerns that fall outside the scope of these guidelines are Concerns that fall outside the scope of these guidelines are
certainly possible; these guidelines should not be considered certainly possible; these guidelines should not be considered
as an all-encompassing check-list. as an all-encompassing check-list.
(0) Differences with Congestion Control Principles [RFC2914]
Proposed congestion control mechanisms that do not take into
account the congestion control principles from [RFC2914] should
include a clear explanation of their differences.
(1) Impact on Standard TCP, SCTP [RFC2960], and DCCP [RFC4340]. (1) Impact on Standard TCP, SCTP [RFC2960], and DCCP [RFC4340].
Proposed congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated when Proposed congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated when
competing with standard IETF congestion control. Alternate competing with standard IETF congestion control. Alternate
congestion controllers that have a significantly negative impact congestion controllers that have a significantly negative impact
on traffic using standard congestion control may be suspect and on traffic using standard congestion control may be suspect and
this aspect should be part of the community's decision making this aspect should be part of the community's decision making
with regards to the suitability of the alternate congestion with regards to the suitability of the alternate congestion
control mechanism. control mechanism.
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
1 lines changed or deleted 21 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/