[R-C] WG name (Re: Charter -> congestion avoidance vs. congestion control?)

[Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)]

I prefer an explicit reference to RTP (IRCC) not Media (IMCC) in the WG name, since we are explicitly targeting RTP, and plan to extend RTP/RTCP if necessary per the charter.

...
The working group will:
        * Develop a clear understanding of the congestion control requirements for RTP flows, and document deficiencies of existing mechanisms such as TFRC with regards to these requirements.
        * Define interactions between applications and RTP flows to enable signalling requirements such as per-packet priorities.
        * Determine if there is an appropriate means to define standard RTP/RTCP extensions for carrying congestion control feedback, similar to how DCCP defines CCIDs, and if so, document such extensions as standards-track RFCs.
...

But I understand if that name may irk some folks... :)

Mo

-----Original Message-----
From: Saverio Mascolo [mailto:saverio.mascolo at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:31 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand
Cc: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty); John Leslie; rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: [R-C] WG name (Re: Charter -> congestion avoidance vs. congestion control?)

IMCC - Interactive Media Congestion Control

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
> It's an old IETF meme that if you want lots of people to comment, one should
> start discussing the name of something (protocol, WG, it doesn't matter).
>
> I've got a page on the site for this subject:
>
> http://rtp-congestion.alvestrand.com/bof-planning-page/naming
>
> I've added IRCC to the suggestion list.
>
> On 08/07/2012 09:10 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
>
> I'm glad John mentioned the proposed WG name.
> - I think IRCC (Interactive RTP Congestion Control) may be better than
> RMCAT.
> - Congestion control seems to have become the more common general term, with
> congestion avoidance often associated with a particular phase/state of
> overall TCP congestion control. We're not working on TCP, but readers of our
> charter and drafts will likely be well-versed in TCP CC/CA.
> - "Media" and "Techniques" seem superfluous. What RTP payloads are we trying
> to exclude by explicitly saying "Media"?
> - Interactive is missing, since we are explicitly excluding non-interactive
> RTP (e.g. highly buffered streaming applications).
>
> So I would prefer the WG name to be IRCC (Interactive RTP Congestion
> Control), and the charter to talk in terms of congestion control. We will
> obviously have a control loop, and its time constant may be short or long,
> depending on the final solution(s), but it's still a control loop at any
> timescale.
>
> Mo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtp-congestion-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:rtp-congestion-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John Leslie
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 8:35 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: [R-C] Charter -> congestion avoidance vs. congestion control?
>
> Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
> When I first learned networking ~30 years ago, "congestion avoidance"
> was the term used when you managed things so that congestion at the
> media level could never happen (token ring, ATM), while "congestion
> control" was the whole area of what you did either to avoid congestion
> or to deal with it once it happened.
>
>    30-years? A newcomer!!
>
>    IMHO, both terms are kind of accidental -- congestion can only be
> prevented if you know the entire path a packet will follow. "Congestion
> control" is the term applied to the AIMD algorithm for TCP: IMHO to
> indicate a control loop. But we could just as well have talked of it
> as "congestion avoidance" since what it actually did is avoid sending
> data into a path believed to be congested.
>
>    "Congestion control" has always struck me as an optimistic name --
> but then, _all_ names are optimistic! IMHO, what we will do for
> congestion-management in RMCAT will look even less like a tight control
> loop.
>
> So I'd prefer "congestion control", since congestion is a fact of life;
> we're dealing with it, not avoiding it at all cost - but I'm a bit
> old-fashioned.
>
>    Congestion which drives up delay will _need_ to be avoided in RMCAT.
> "Congestion avoidance" to me has never meant "at all cost", but YMMV.
> Myself, I'm more sensitive to any suggestion that RMCAT can "control"
> overall congestion. We're going to find ourselves at the mercy of and
> competing TCP streams (which will always try to fill the pipe); and
> if we have any way to "control" them, it's not obvious to me.
>
>    But perhaps the final argument is our name:
>
> RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques (RMCAT)
>
> --
> John Leslie <john at jlc.net>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtp-congestion mailing list
> Rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtp-congestion mailing list
> Rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion
>



-- 
Saverio Mascolo, Full Professor
Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica
Politecnico di Bari
Via Orabona 4, 70125 Bari Italy
Tel. +39 080 5963621
Fax. +39 080 5963410
email:mascolo at poliba.it

http://c3lab.poliba.it


=================================
 This message may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information.
  If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please destroy it.
 Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying of the material in
 this message, and any attachments to the message, is strictly forbidden.