Subject: RE: [Simple] Congestion Control

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:46:05 -0500

Aki asked:
> So what if we drop the safety portion of congestion safe, and 
> focus on ensuring congestion-controlled transport gets used 
> at each hop instead?

That's probably a reasonable compromise. All the complexity jumps up when we
try to show a "safe" way to use UDP. The proposed mechanism could easily be
used to simply assure that UDP isn't being used at all. I could probably fix
the draft up by just deleting a few passages.

The result would be quite useful for MESSAGE, as well as big invitations,
etc. It does raise questions for high-fan-in servers and potentially for
mobile applications, although I'm inclined to think that these questions do
not have as severe a downside as some people seem to think.

I suppose this should properly be discussed on the SIP list. . .

--
Dean

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

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:46:05 -0500

--
Dean