Although I like the seeming simplicity of "congestion avoidance", that precise pair of words is used to refer to the +1 per RTT behavior of TCP during the AIMD sawtooth. How about just "avoid congestion", which has a similar sense but is less specific and unlikely to cause any confusion. Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:10 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
Stefan Holmer <stefan@webrtc.org> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
Thanks for all your inputs! I agree with all of them, from Matt and John, except: ... [John Leslie wrote:]
In case the above isn't sufficient to start some flame-wars, I also strongly suggest adding language better defining the problem, to cover: - RMCAT strongly wants low delay and low jitter - RMCAT can tolerate loss better than high delay - RMCAT prefers consistent bandwidth to inconsistent high bandwidth - we posit that RMCAT can reasonably adjust slower than TCP
because, indeed, as Randell says, this edges towards a solution space. Low delay has always been there, I added "and low jitter" now - but the other things are assumptions that I think we shouldn't make (in particular the third item). They may or may not be correct, depending on the codec in use, and so this gets too narrow IMO if we write it in the charter.
I'm not particular about the wording, but I think the charter needs at least a hint that the congestion-avoidance aims are different than TCP.
In addition this is not only focused on video or audio streams, but also data streams which may prefer inconsistent high bandwidth than a lower consistent bandwidth.
Indeed, there may be data streams included which would prefer TCP congestion-management rules; but these _are_ under our control, and almost by definition are incidental to the overall RMCAT congestion issues. We can give them incidental (arguably spare) bandwidth while still keeping our delay low.
(I'm quite happy to let Michael wordsmith how big the hint should be: I just don't want to abandon mention of the differing aims.)
-- John Leslie <john@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ Rtp-congestion mailing list Rtp-congestion@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion