Subject: [Tsvwg] Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:34:30 -0700

Mark Allman and I have a new version of our draft on
"Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic",
draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-01, available at:
"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-01".

It includes some changes from feedback from Tim Shephard,
Bob Briscoe, and Mitchell Erblich, along with a new citation to
a 2004 paper by Jim Roberts on "Internet Traffic, QoS, and
Pricing".

This draft is targeted to become an individual Informational RFC,
not a working group document, so it won't go through Working
Group Last Call.  However, any feedback would be welcome.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/

    Changes from draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-00.txt:

    * Added a sentence about peer-to-peer traffic opening many
      simultaneous connections in a session.  From Tim Shephard.

    * Added a discussion on the control of attacks, flash crowds, and
      the like.  Feedback from Tim Shephard.

    * Clarified the requirements of cost-based fairness in terms of the
      economic infrastructure.  From feedback from Bob Briscoe:

    * Clarified the definition of simple best-effort traffic.
      Feedback from Bob Briscoe.

    * Added a citation to a paper by Jim Roberts on "Internet Traffic,
      QoS, and Pricing".

    * Added a discussion of whether either the transport protocol
      (TCP vs. UDP) or the application should affect the fairness
      goals for simple best-effort traffic.  Added a discussion of the
      precision of fairness.  Feedback from Mitchell Erblich.

    * Added a sentence to the discussion of byte vs. packet fairness
      about the bytes in packet headers.  Feedback from Mitchell Erblich.

And the citation to the Roberts paper:

    There are, of course,
    differences of opinion about how well cost-based fairness could be
    enforced, and how well it fits the commercial reality of the
    Internet, with [B07] presenting an optimistic view.  Another point of
    view, e.g., from Roberts in a paper on "Internet Traffic, QoS, and
    Pricing", is that "many proposed schemes are overly concerned with
    congestion control to the detriment of the primary pricing function
    of return on investment" [R04].