> On 1 Jul 2022, at 17:30, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wish rmcat was not considered out of scope in this charter. The > internet is a communications network, not just a file transfer > network.
The RMCAT WG still exits and can take work on standardising congestion control algorithms for interactive real-time communications, if needed. However, the working group activities have declined over the last couple of years and I am not sure how much interest/energy is there for new work (in genera)l for the real-time interactive traffic. The working group has published materials that can useful if discussions pops up in relevant forums/working groups. I wish the congestion control algorithms RMCAT produced were used widely in WebRTC and other RTP based real-time communication systems. That is not the case yet. This also shows the fact that there should be honest interest not only in developing good congestion control algorithms but also deploying it. > > Also I find measurement tools that depend on obsolete 00's thinking - > like owamp - and rtp - very out of date when we should be thinking > about latency > and jitter in the sub 8ms range - if we're really serious about > building a metaverse. These days I am working with very fine grained > (3ms - preferably 1ms but no cloudy machine I have access to can > actually reliably generate packets from userspace on a 1ms interval) > active measurement data. > > As an example of what we learn from inspecting a network at 3ms > detail, see: https://forum.openwrt.org/t/cake-w-adaptive-bandwidth/108848/3142 > for some current plots and a plotting script - of starlink's behaviors > using the irtt tool. > > I was thinking about doing a talk (in iccrg? here?) on how we think > about network traffic at too large a granularity (mbits/sec) in favor > of "steady kbit/ms" or "steady packets over ms" (SPOM). I would be interest in this kind of talks. If you have proposals we can pick venues. //Zahed > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:28 AM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello Transport Enthusiasts, >> (bcc: TCPM, QUIC, and ICCRG) >> >> Zahed and I would like to invite you to the TSVAREA meeting at IETF 114 >> (Monday 13:30 local time), where we will be having a more action-oriented >> discussion than usual. >> >> TL;DR the way we do congestion control standards is written down in RFC >> 5033, and is no longer aligned with how congestion control innovation >> happens or the family of transport protocols that use standard congestion >> control. The IETF is largely irrelevant to new congestion control >> deployments. So we'll discuss a proposal to fix it. This meeting will have >> some BoF-like elements but it is not formally a BoF. >> >> In consultation with several stakeholders, we've devised a strategy to >> address this: >> >> * Colin Perkins, IRTF chair, has agreed to add at least one chair to ICCRG >> (I'm sure Colin would welcome volunteer candidates!). While retaining its >> hosting presentations role, there will be renewed emphasis on serving as a >> forum to produce experimental RFCs, with a charter update if necessary. >> >> * The Transport ADs are going to consider chartering a new IETF working >> group to update the administrative framework for congestion control >> standardization, and potentially adopt any proposals that are sufficiently >> mature for the standards track. We've formulated a proposed charter. Please >> consider it a starting point for discussion. >> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-89f2a2da742ddce8&q=1&e=e6a9d612-3bda-4815-aac4-b5fd39764cb5&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmartinduke%2Fcongestion-control-charter%2F >> I ask you to review this document before attending. It answers many of the >> questions you may already have. >> >> In Philadelphia, we hope to answer as many of the following questions as >> possible, in order: >> * Is there rough consensus on the problem to solve? >> * Are the deliverables right? >> * Are there people willing to take responsibility for those deliverables? >> (The meeting is over if the answer is "no") >> * Does the proposed charter need changes? >> * Is anyone especially excited to chair this WG? >> >> Please come to Philadelphia having thought about these questions and >> prepared to answer them. You are also welcome to share thoughts on the >> tsv-area list; all other recipients have been Bcced: so that the rest of the >> thread will go to only that list. Subscribe if you want to track the >> discussion. >> >> Although charter wordsmithing is somewhat premature, you are also welcome to >> file issues and PRs on the github linked above. >> >> See you there, >> Martin and Zahed >> Your friendly Transport ADs > > > > -- > FQ World Domination pending: > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-52d7a4659d6bb6c6&q=1&e=e6a9d612-3bda-4815-aac4-b5fd39764cb5&u=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cerowrt.org%2Fpost%2Fstate_of_fq_codel%2F > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
