Subject: [dcp] is ...ticast taboo ?

From: Thierry Turletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:38:16 +0200

Hi all,

Even if multicast congestion control is not as mature than unicast congestion
control, I'm not sure it is a good idea to prevent future possible extensions
of DCP for multicast. For example the concept of connections with mandatory 
acknowledgments, reliable handshakes, etc. could be mandatory for unicast
flows and optional (for small groups) or forbidden for multicast flows.
A simple scheme without negotiation for multicast is when the source selects 
the congestion control to be used for all receivers. Is it the moment to
forecast such extensions in the draft, or just open a door?

Cheers

Thierry

_______________________________________________
dcp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcp

---

From: Eddie Kohler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:34:44 -0700

Hi Thierry,

Our take is that we designed DCCP for unicast, and the vast majority of its
features (acks, feature negotiation, ...) would not be meaningful in a
multicast context. Any DCCP-like protocol for multicast would be so
different that you might as well give it its own name. Of course such a
protocol could use ideas from DCCP, as far as they are applicable.

Eddie

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:09:32 -0400

Another reply is that protocols being developed in
the RMT working group have congestion control building
blocks and have a range of "reliability".  They may well
provide whatever DCCP-like protocol you might envision for
multicast...

Allison