Subject: BCP 48, RFC 3150 on PILC - Slow Links

From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:08:40 -0700

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        BCP 48
        RFC 3150

        Title:	    End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links
        Author(s):  S. Dawkins, G. Montenegro, M. Kojo, V. Magret
        Status:     Best Current Practice
	Date:       July 2001
        Mailbox:    [email-masked], [email-masked],
                    [email-masked], [email-masked]
        Pages:      17
        Characters: 39942
        SeeAlso:    BCP 48

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-pilc-slow-07.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3150.txt

This document makes performance-related recommendations for users of
network paths that traverse "very low bit-rate" links.
 
"Very low bit-rate" implies "slower than we would like".  This
recommendation may be useful in any network where hosts can saturate
available bandwidth, but the design space for this recommendation
explicitly includes connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem
links or 4.8 Kb/second wireless access links - both of which are
widely deployed.
 
This document discusses general-purpose mechanisms.  Where
application-specific mechanisms can outperform the relevant
general-purpose mechanism, we point this out and explain why.
 
This document has some recommendations in common with RFC 2689,
"Providing integrated services over low-bitrate links", especially
in areas like header compression.  This document focuses more on
traditional data applications for which "best-effort delivery" is
appropriate.

This document is a product of the Performance Implications of Link
Characteristics Working Group of the IETF.

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to [email-masked].  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to [email-masked].

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body 
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

        To: [email-masked]
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.echo 
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
[email-masked].  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader 
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
of the RFCs.