[R-C] [Iccrg] Re: Timely reaction time (Re: Comments on draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion-01)

[Lachlan Andrew]

Greetings Michael,

Are you saying you need an emergency "brake" (i.e., slowing down)
rather than emergency "break" (i.e., termination, with or without a
restart later)?

Cheers,
Lachlan

On 30 March 2012 21:17, Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> On 03/29/2012 01:55 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Section 4: par 3, "This algorithm is run every time a receive report
>>>> arrives..." => so in case of severe congestion, when nothing else arrives,
>>>> this algorithm waits for 2 * t_max_fb_interval... so can we rely on the
>>>> mechanism to react to this congestion after roughly an RTO or not? (sounds
>>>> like not)  Is that bad?  (I guess)
>>>>
>>>> There is a need for some emergency break mechanism if no feedback gets
>>>> through.
>>>
>>>
>>> I totally agree - what I meant is, it isn't clear to me if that emergency
>>> break is activated in time or too late. It should be in time (i.e. after
>>> roughly an RTO).
>>
>> This seems to be a subject that should be discussed in the context of the
>> circuit-breakers draft: What kind of response time is appropriate for such a
>> mechanism, and why?
>
>
> I think not: we're talking about two kinds of situations here. The context
> here is: there was congestion, we should react to it within an RTO (and have
> an "emergency break" to always do that - but maybe that term was
> misleading). The circuit-breakers draft is about a much more serious
> condition (such as persistent congestion), warranting a much more serious
> reaction (terminating the connection).
>
> Cheers,
> Michael



-- 
Lachlan Andrew  Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA)
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
<http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew>
Ph +61 3 9214 4837