From lars.eggert at nokia.com Tue Mar 6 07:38:55 2007 From: lars.eggert at nokia.com (ext Lars Eggert) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:38:55 +0200 Subject: [Tmrg-interest] preliminary TSVAREA agenda for Prague In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: TSVAREA Agenda for IETF-68 (Prague) TUESDAY, March 20, 2007 1520-1720 Afternoon Session II Congress III 10 min Note Well Scribes Agenda Bashing 10 min New WG Overview: Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Scott Bradner and Steven Blake 20 min Bringing Experimental High-Speed Congestion Control to the IETF Lars Eggert 20 min Vista Implementation Report on ECN/FRTO/WS/DSACK Dave Thaler and Murari Sridharan Please email additional agenda requests to tsv-ads at tools.ietf.org. The purpose of the TSVAREA meeting is to inform about and discuss important issues, developments and work within the transport area or outside work that impacts the transport area. In contrast to TSVWG, TSVAREA does not produce any documents. TSVAREA can include tutorial- style talks on tranport topics, maybe based on related IRTF or other research work. Again, we encourage relevant presentations from both within the transport area and from outside parties, such as other IETF WGs or the IRTF. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2446 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/tmrg-interest/attachments/20070306/851294d7/attachment.bin From sallyfloyd at mac.com Mon Mar 12 11:38:57 2007 From: sallyfloyd at mac.com (Sally Floyd) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:38:57 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg-interest] feedback on draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics? Message-ID: This is a last check of the research group to see that there is rough consensus that "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion Control Mechanisms", internet-draft draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-06.txt, is ready for forward to the IRTF for review and publication as an Informational RFC. This draft finished review in TMRG several months ago, and it just finished a pass of feedback from ICCRG (the Internet Congestion Control Research Group). The feedback included feedback from Michael Welzl and Lachlan Andrew adding explanations to the fairness discussions, and some general feedback from Mark Allman. I would like to forward this to the IRTF next week (March 19). This is a final check of the TMRG that there is rough consensus for this document to be forwarded. The abstract of the document contains the following caveat: This document is a product of the Transport Modeling Research Group (TRMG), and has received detailed feedback from many members of the Research Group (RG). As the document tries to make clear, there is not necessarily a consensus within the research community (or the IETF community, the vendor community, the operations community, or any other community) about the metrics that congestion control mechanisms should be designed to optimize, in terms of tradeoffs between throughput and delay, fairness between competing flows, and the like. However, we believe that there is a clear consensus that congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of tradeoffs between a range of metrics, rather than in terms of optimizing for a single metric. Thanks - - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ History within TMRG: * The first version of the draft was submitted in May 2005. * The draft has had contributions or reviews from the following: Armando Caro, Dah Ming Chiu, Dado Colussi, Wesley Eddy, Nelson Fonseca, Janardhan Iyengar, Doug Leith, Saverio Mascolo, Sean Moore, Injong Rhee, David Ros, Andras Veres, and Damon Wischik, * The procedure for advancing to Informational was outlined in email on November 8 to the TMRG mailing list, and the draft received a review from David Ros. * Finished a round of feedback from ICCRG on March 6, 2007. Feedback from Mark Allman, Lachlan Andrew, and Michael Welzl. From michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at Thu Mar 15 06:33:42 2007 From: michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at (Michael Welzl) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:33:42 +0100 Subject: [Tmrg-interest] feedback on draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1173965622.3332.32.camel@pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at> Dear Sally, dear TMRG'ers, I think that this email should refer to draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt ( http://www.icir.org/tmrg/draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt ) and not -06 BTW, the reference to RFC 3168 seems to be broken ("BIBREF ..." ) Cheers, Michael On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 11:38 -0700, Sally Floyd wrote: > This is a last check of the research group to see that there is > rough consensus that "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion > Control Mechanisms", internet-draft draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-06.txt, > is ready for forward to the IRTF for review and publication as an > Informational RFC. > > This draft finished review in TMRG several months ago, and it just > finished a pass of feedback from ICCRG (the Internet Congestion > Control Research Group). The feedback included feedback from > Michael Welzl and Lachlan Andrew adding explanations to the fairness > discussions, and some general feedback from Mark Allman. > > I would like to forward this to the IRTF next week (March 19). This > is a final check of the TMRG that there is rough consensus for this > document to be forwarded. The abstract of the document contains > the following caveat: > > This document is a product of the Transport Modeling Research Group > (TRMG), and has received detailed feedback from many members of the > Research Group (RG). As the document tries to make clear, there is > not necessarily a consensus within the research community (or the > IETF community, the vendor community, the operations community, or > any other community) about the metrics that congestion control > mechanisms should be designed to optimize, in terms of tradeoffs > between throughput and delay, fairness between competing flows, and > the like. However, we believe that there is a clear consensus that > congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of > tradeoffs between a range of metrics, rather than in terms of > optimizing for a single metric. > > Thanks - > > - Sally > http://www.icir.org/floyd/ > > > History within TMRG: > > * The first version of the draft was submitted in May 2005. > > * The draft has had contributions or reviews from the following: > Armando Caro, Dah Ming Chiu, Dado Colussi, Wesley Eddy, > Nelson Fonseca, Janardhan Iyengar, Doug Leith, Saverio Mascolo, Sean > Moore, Injong Rhee, David Ros, Andras Veres, and Damon Wischik, > > * The procedure for advancing to Informational was outlined in > email on November 8 to the TMRG mailing list, and the > draft received a review from David Ros. > > * Finished a round of feedback from ICCRG on March 6, 2007. > Feedback from Mark Allman, Lachlan Andrew, and Michael Welzl. > > _______________________________________________ > Tmrg-interest mailing list > Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest From sallyfloyd at mac.com Thu Mar 15 09:22:09 2007 From: sallyfloyd at mac.com (Sally Floyd) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:22:09 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg-interest] feedback on draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics? In-Reply-To: <1173965622.3332.32.camel@pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at> References: <1173965622.3332.32.camel@pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at> Message-ID: <20734715cad4797af239cebceb42b1f4@mac.com> > I think that this email should refer to > draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt > ( http://www.icir.org/tmrg/draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt ) > and not -06 Oops. Sorry, you are exactly right. > BTW, the reference to RFC 3168 seems to be broken ("BIBREF ..." ) Many thanks. I will fix it. (I left out a period...) - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ From sallyfloyd at mac.com Tue Mar 20 11:50:20 2007 From: sallyfloyd at mac.com (Sally Floyd) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:50:20 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg-interest] forwarding draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt to the IRTF for review Message-ID: <0462c73435f2a252b5335aea2a3a059e@mac.com> Aaron - This is to forward the draft draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt to the IRTF, to be considered for Informational. The draft is available at "http://www.icir.org/tmrg/draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt", and will be submitted to the internet-drafts editor at the end of this IETF. The report on the document is appended below. If this needs anything more, let me know. Many thanks, - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ --------------------------------------------------------- Document shepherd: Sally Floyd Has the document had adequate review? Yes, the document has had strong reviews, from both TMRG and ICCRG members and others. The draft has had contributions or reviews from the following: Armando Caro, Dah Ming Chiu, Dado Colussi, Wesley Eddy, Nelson Fonseca, Janardhan Iyengar, Doug Leith, Saverio Mascolo, Sean Moore, David Ros, Injong Rhee, David Ros, Andras Veres, and Damon Wischik, Feedback from the ICCRG has come from Mark Allman, Lachlan Andrew, and Michael Welzl. Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective? Nope. It is a pretty low-key document. Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the IRTF should be aware of? There isn't any particular consensus in the IETF or research communities about the metrics that congestion control should be designed to optimize. The document makes this explicit. From the abstract: This document is a product of the Transport Modeling Research Group (TRMG), and has received detailed feedback from many members of the Research Group (RG). As the document tries to make clear, there is not necessarily a consensus within the research community (or the IETF community, the vendor community, the operations community, or any other community) about the metrics that congestion control mechanisms should be designed to optimize, in terms of tradeoffs between throughput and delay, fairness between competing flows, and the like. However, we believe that there is a clear consensus that congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of tradeoffs between a range of metrics, rather than in terms of optimizing for a single metric. How solid is the RG consensus behind this document? It is a very low-activity RG, but none of the feedback, which is from a wide range of people, has expressed unresolved problems with the document. The paragraph above from the abstract tries to make clear the nature of the consensus. Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? Yep. ---------------------------------------------------------