Cc: Patrik Fältström <email@example.com>, Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Allison Mankin <email@example.com>, Scott Bradner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ned Freed <email@example.com>
From: Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:47:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Requirements Document Update
Thanks to all for the clarifications. Scott submitted a new draft based on the comments received earlier. If we think the clarifications mean a more general edit is needed, we'll have another soon. At 8:14 AM -0500 1/11/02, Allison Mankin wrote: >Patrik, > >I would only add to what you and Scott wrote that: > >> _somewhere_ in the protocol stack there has to be congestion control > >It is not only a large undertaking to put congestion control in >the application itself, but it may greatly distort the application >protocol if it has the requirement to make the network timing >measurements needed for congestion control (taken care of by >using TCP or SCTP). > >We asked for the wording in the provreg document to encourage >provreg not to choose UDP as the transport and then be forced >to provide application congestion control as well. > >Allison > > > >Allison -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NAI Labs Phone: +1 443-259-2352 Email: email@example.com Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.