Subject: Re: [rmcat] MW's review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-00

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:41:10 -0800

On 12/21/2013 12:39 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>
>> 8. (interaction with TCP)
>> => here I suggested "not starve TCP and not be starved by TCP" in my 
>> separate email on "Fairness" to the list. I think that should do it, 
>> rather than this somewhat lengthy discussion.
>
> I didn't touch this (yet).  We can discuss more; we may end up yanking 
> it for being too like "discussion".

Replaced with:

       The algorithm should not starve competing TCP flows, and should 
as best as possible avoid starvation by TCP flows.
           a. An algorithm may be more successful at avoiding starvation 
from short-lived TCP long-lived/saturating TCP flows.

           b. In order to avoid starvation other goals may need to be 
compromised (such as delay).

I also added in response to Mirja's comments (this is a sub-point to the 
Fairness requirement):

           Existing flows at a bottleneck must also be fair to new flows
           to that bottleneck, and must allow new flows to ramp up to a 
useful
           share of the bottleneck bandwidth quickly.

If there are no other edits suggested, I'll update the draft in the next 
day.  Thanks!

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]