To:
mankin@isi.edu
Cc:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
From:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Date:
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:47:34 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<200201111314.g0BDE5H06754@minotaur.nge.isi.edu>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
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: lewis@tislabs.com Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.