TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): The Small-Packet (SP) Variant
RFC 4828

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Lars Eggert) Yes

(Ted Hardie) Yes

Comment (2006-12-13)
No email
send info
The document says:

    There are many questions about how an adaptive application would use
    TFRC-SP that are beyond the scope of this document.  In particular,
    an application might wish to avoid unnecessary reductions in the
    packet size.   In this case, an application might wait for some
    period of time before reducing the packet size, to avoid an
    unnecessary reduction in the packet size.  The details of how long
    an application might wait before reducing the packet size can be
    addressed in documents that are more application-specific.

I understand that these issues are beyond the scope of the document,
but I encourage the investigators looking at codec shifts as an example
of potential packet size changes to look at how FEC strategies associated
with specific codecs interact with this form of adaptation.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-11)
No email
send info
  From the SecDir Review by Juergen Quittek:

  The Security Considerations section claims:
  >
  > There are no security considerations introduced in this document.
  >
  I can live with this statement.  However, it does not seem to be fully
  consistent with the security considerations in RFC 3448 to which this
  document refers.  The security consideration in RFC 3448 also consider
  'attacks' against the fairness performed by a greedy receiver.
  Consequently, shouldn't this also be an issue here?

  The question that may be raised in this context is whether or not TFRC-SP
  makes attacks against fairness more effective.  A rogue sender could
  ignore the 10 ms Min Interval or ignore received feedback.  Would a
  rogue sender be able to get a bigger share of the bandwidth by
  choosing TFRC-SP instead of choosing another congestion control scheme
  such as TFRC?

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

Comment (2006-12-14)
No email
send info
Section 3.

       If the
       TFRC implementation knows that the IP layer is using IPv6 instead
       of IPv4, then the connection using TFRC-SP MAY use an estimate of
       40 bytes instead of 60 bytes for H, for simplicity of
       implementation.

It seems the 60 and 40 values should change place in the above sentence.