Coding and congestion control in transport
draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nwcrg RG)
Authors Nicolas Kuhn  , Emmanuel Lochin  , Fran├žois Michel  , Michael Welzl 
Last updated 2020-02-06 (latest revision 2019-12-05)
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
NWCRG                                                            N. Kuhn
Internet-Draft                                                      CNES
Intended status: Informational                                 E. Lochin
Expires: August 9, 2020                                     ISAE-SUPAERO
                                                               F. Michel
                                                               UCLouvain
                                                                M. Welzl
                                                      University of Oslo
                                                        February 6, 2020

               Coding and congestion control in transport
               draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-01

Abstract

   Coding is a reliability mechanism that is distinct and separated from
   the loss detection of congestion controls.  Using coding can be a
   useful way to better deal with tail losses or with networks with non-
   congestion losses.  However, coding mechanisms should not hide
   congestion signals.  This memo offers a discussion of how coding and
   congestion control can coexist.  This document can help the
   comparison of FEC schemes by identifying at which level they are
   operating with respect to the transport congestion control.

   This document is the product of the Coding for Efficient Network
   Communications Research Group (NWCRG).  The scope of the document is
   end-to-end communications: coding for tunnels is out-of-the scope of
   the document.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2020.

Kuhn, et al.             Expires August 9, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Coding and congestion            February 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Separate channels, separate entities  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Type of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  End-to-end  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Objective of the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  FEC within the transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   There are cases where deploying coding improves the quality of the
   transmission.  As an example, it may take time for the server to
   detect tail losses and this would impact the experience of
   applications using short flows.  Another example are networks where
   non-congestion losses are persistent and prevent a sender from
   exploiting the link capacity.

   Coding is a reliability mechanism that is distinct and separated from
   the loss detection of congestion controls.  [RFC5681] defines TCP as
   a loss-based congestion control; because coding repairs such losses,
   blindly applying it may easily lead to an implementation that also
   hides a congestion signal to the sender.  It is important to ensure
   that such information hiding does not occur.

Kuhn, et al.             Expires August 9, 2020                 [Page 2]
Show full document text