One document matched: draft-ietf-dccp-problem-03.ps

%!PS-Adobe-3.0
%%Creator: groff version 1.19
%%CreationDate: Wed Aug 24 06:23:09 2005
%%DocumentNeededResources: font Courier-Bold
%%+ font Times-Bold
%%+ font Times-Roman
%%+ font Times-Italic
%%DocumentSuppliedResources: procset grops 1.19 0
%%Pages: 17
%%PageOrder: Ascend
%%DocumentMedia: Default 612 792 0 () ()
%%Orientation: Portrait
%%EndComments
%%BeginDefaults
%%PageMedia: Default
%%EndDefaults
%%BeginProlog
%%BeginResource: procset grops 1.19 0
/setpacking where{
pop
currentpacking
true setpacking
}if
/grops 120 dict dup begin
/SC 32 def
/A/show load def
/B{0 SC 3 -1 roll widthshow}bind def
/C{0 exch ashow}bind def
/D{0 exch 0 SC 5 2 roll awidthshow}bind def
/E{0 rmoveto show}bind def
/F{0 rmoveto 0 SC 3 -1 roll widthshow}bind def
/G{0 rmoveto 0 exch ashow}bind def
/H{0 rmoveto 0 exch 0 SC 5 2 roll awidthshow}bind def
/I{0 exch rmoveto show}bind def
/J{0 exch rmoveto 0 SC 3 -1 roll widthshow}bind def
/K{0 exch rmoveto 0 exch ashow}bind def
/L{0 exch rmoveto 0 exch 0 SC 5 2 roll awidthshow}bind def
/M{rmoveto show}bind def
/N{rmoveto 0 SC 3 -1 roll widthshow}bind def
/O{rmoveto 0 exch ashow}bind def
/P{rmoveto 0 exch 0 SC 5 2 roll awidthshow}bind def
/Q{moveto show}bind def
/R{moveto 0 SC 3 -1 roll widthshow}bind def
/S{moveto 0 exch ashow}bind def
/T{moveto 0 exch 0 SC 5 2 roll awidthshow}bind def
/SF{
findfont exch
[exch dup 0 exch 0 exch neg 0 0]makefont
dup setfont
[exch/setfont cvx]cvx bind def
}bind def
/MF{
findfont
[5 2 roll
0 3 1 roll
neg 0 0]makefont
dup setfont
[exch/setfont cvx]cvx bind def
}bind def
/level0 0 def
/RES 0 def
/PL 0 def
/LS 0 def
/MANUAL{
statusdict begin/manualfeed true store end
}bind def
/PLG{
gsave newpath clippath pathbbox grestore
exch pop add exch pop
}bind def
/BP{
/level0 save def
1 setlinecap
1 setlinejoin
72 RES div dup scale
LS{
90 rotate
}{
0 PL translate
}ifelse
1 -1 scale
}bind def
/EP{
level0 restore
showpage
}bind def
/DA{
newpath arcn stroke
}bind def
/SN{
transform
.25 sub exch .25 sub exch
round .25 add exch round .25 add exch
itransform
}bind def
/DL{
SN
moveto
SN
lineto stroke
}bind def
/DC{
newpath 0 360 arc closepath
}bind def
/TM matrix def
/DE{
TM currentmatrix pop
translate scale newpath 0 0 .5 0 360 arc closepath
TM setmatrix
}bind def
/RC/rcurveto load def
/RL/rlineto load def
/ST/stroke load def
/MT/moveto load def
/CL/closepath load def
/Fr{
setrgbcolor fill
}bind def
/setcmykcolor where{
pop
/Fk{
setcmykcolor fill
}bind def
}if
/Fg{
setgray fill
}bind def
/FL/fill load def
/LW/setlinewidth load def
/Cr/setrgbcolor load def
/setcmykcolor where{
pop
/Ck/setcmykcolor load def
}if
/Cg/setgray load def
/RE{
findfont
dup maxlength 1 index/FontName known not{1 add}if dict begin
{
1 index/FID ne{def}{pop pop}ifelse
}forall
/Encoding exch def
dup/FontName exch def
currentdict end definefont pop
}bind def
/DEFS 0 def
/EBEGIN{
moveto
DEFS begin
}bind def
/EEND/end load def
/CNT 0 def
/level1 0 def
/PBEGIN{
/level1 save def
translate
div 3 1 roll div exch scale
neg exch neg exch translate
0 setgray
0 setlinecap
1 setlinewidth
0 setlinejoin
10 setmiterlimit
[]0 setdash
/setstrokeadjust where{
pop
false setstrokeadjust
}if
/setoverprint where{
pop
false setoverprint
}if
newpath
/CNT countdictstack def
userdict begin
/showpage{}def
/setpagedevice{}def
}bind def
/PEND{
clear
countdictstack CNT sub{end}repeat
level1 restore
}bind def
end def
/setpacking where{
pop
setpacking
}if
%%EndResource
%%BeginFeature: *PageSize Default
<< /PageSize [ 612 792 ] /ImagingBBox null >> setpagedevice
%%EndFeature
%%IncludeResource: font Courier-Bold
%%IncludeResource: font Times-Bold
%%IncludeResource: font Times-Roman
%%IncludeResource: font Times-Italic
grops begin/DEFS 1 dict def DEFS begin/u{.001 mul}bind def end/RES 72
def/PL 792 def/LS false def/ENC0[/asciicircum/asciitilde/Scaron/Zcaron
/scaron/zcaron/Ydieresis/trademark/quotesingle/Euro/.notdef/.notdef
/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef
/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/.notdef
/.notdef/.notdef/space/exclam/quotedbl/numbersign/dollar/percent
/ampersand/quoteright/parenleft/parenright/asterisk/plus/comma/hyphen
/period/slash/zero/one/two/three/four/five/six/seven/eight/nine/colon
/semicolon/less/equal/greater/question/at/A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/O
/P/Q/R/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y/Z/bracketleft/backslash/bracketright/circumflex
/underscore/quoteleft/a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h/i/j/k/l/m/n/o/p/q/r/s/t/u/v/w/x/y
/z/braceleft/bar/braceright/tilde/.notdef/quotesinglbase/guillemotleft
/guillemotright/bullet/florin/fraction/perthousand/dagger/daggerdbl
/endash/emdash/ff/fi/fl/ffi/ffl/dotlessi/dotlessj/grave/hungarumlaut
/dotaccent/breve/caron/ring/ogonek/quotedblleft/quotedblright/oe/lslash
/quotedblbase/OE/Lslash/.notdef/exclamdown/cent/sterling/currency/yen
/brokenbar/section/dieresis/copyright/ordfeminine/guilsinglleft
/logicalnot/minus/registered/macron/degree/plusminus/twosuperior
/threesuperior/acute/mu/paragraph/periodcentered/cedilla/onesuperior
/ordmasculine/guilsinglright/onequarter/onehalf/threequarters
/questiondown/Agrave/Aacute/Acircumflex/Atilde/Adieresis/Aring/AE
/Ccedilla/Egrave/Eacute/Ecircumflex/Edieresis/Igrave/Iacute/Icircumflex
/Idieresis/Eth/Ntilde/Ograve/Oacute/Ocircumflex/Otilde/Odieresis
/multiply/Oslash/Ugrave/Uacute/Ucircumflex/Udieresis/Yacute/Thorn
/germandbls/agrave/aacute/acircumflex/atilde/adieresis/aring/ae/ccedilla
/egrave/eacute/ecircumflex/edieresis/igrave/iacute/icircumflex/idieresis
/eth/ntilde/ograve/oacute/ocircumflex/otilde/odieresis/divide/oslash
/ugrave/uacute/ucircumflex/udieresis/yacute/thorn/ydieresis]def
/Times-Italic@0 ENC0/Times-Italic RE/Times-Roman@0 ENC0/Times-Roman RE
/Times-Bold@0 ENC0/Times-Bold RE/Courier-Bold@0 ENC0/Courier-Bold RE
%%EndProlog
%%Page: 1 1
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 10/Courier-Bold@0 SF(Internet Engineering Task Force)72 85 Q
(Sally Floyd)179.998 E 317.998(INTERNET-DRAFT ICIR)72 98 R 179.998
(draft-ietf-dccp-problem-03.ps Mark)72 111 R(Handley)6 E(UCL)485.998 124
Q(Eddie Kohler)431.998 137 Q(UCLA)479.998 150 Q(24 August 2005)419.998
163 Q(Expires: February 2006)371.998 176 Q/F1 14/Times-Bold@0 SF(Pr)
198.687 201 Q(oblem Statement f)-.252 E(or DCCP)-.35 E/F2 11
/Times-Bold@0 SF(Status of this Document)72 246 Q/F3 11/Times-Roman@0 SF
(This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all pro)100.8
262.6 Q(visions of section 3 of RFC)-.165 E 2.75(3667. By)100.8 275.6 R
(submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that an)2.75 E
2.75(ya)-.165 G(pplicable patent)-2.75 E
(or other IPR claims of which he or she is a)100.8 288.6 Q -.11(wa)-.165
G(re ha).11 E .33 -.165(ve b)-.22 H(een or will be disclosed, and an)
.165 E 2.75(yo)-.165 G(f)-2.75 E(which he or she becomes a)100.8 301.6 Q
-.11(wa)-.165 G
(re will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.).11 E
(Internet-Drafts are w)100.8 318.2 Q
(orking documents of the Internet Engineering T)-.11 E(ask F)-.88 E
(orce \(IETF\), its)-.165 E(areas, and its w)100.8 331.2 Q
(orking groups.)-.11 E(Note that other groups may also distrib)5.5 E
(ute w)-.22 E(orking)-.11 E(documents as Internet-Drafts.)100.8 344.2 Q
(Internet-Drafts are draft documents v)100.8 360.8 Q
(alid for a maximum of six months and may be)-.275 E
(updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at an)100.8 373.8 Q
2.75(yt)-.165 G 2.75(ime. It)-2.75 F(is inappropriate to use)2.75 E
(Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "w)
100.8 386.8 Q(ork in progress.")-.11 E
(The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www)100.8
403.4 Q(.ietf.or)-.715 E(g/ietf/1id-)-.198 E(abstracts.txt.)100.8 416.4
Q(The list of Internet-Draft Shado)100.8 433 Q 2.75(wD)-.275 G
(irectories can be accessed at)-2.75 E(http://www)100.8 446 Q(.ietf.or)
-.715 E(g/shado)-.198 E -.715(w.)-.275 G(html.).715 E
(This Internet-Draft will e)100.8 462.6 Q(xpire on February 2006.)-.165
E F2(Copyright Notice)72 488.6 Q F3(Cop)100.8 505.2 Q
(yright \(C\) The Internet Society \(2005\). All Rights Reserv)-.11 E
(ed.)-.165 E F2(Abstract)267.534 524.2 Q F3
(This document describes, for the historical record, the moti)97 546.8 Q
-.275(va)-.275 G(tion behind DCCP \(the).275 E(Datagram Congestion Cont\
rol Protocol\), an unreliable transport protocol)97 559.8 Q
(incorporating end-to-end congestion control.)97 572.8 Q
(DCCP implements a congestion-)5.5 E(controlled, unreliable \215o)97
585.8 Q 2.75(wo)-.275 G 2.75(fd)-2.75 G
(atagrams for use by applications such as streaming)-2.75 E
(media or on-line g)97 598.8 Q(ames.)-.055 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11
E(y/K)-.165 E 293.51(ohler [P)-.385 F(age 1])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 2 2
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E(NO)125.8 85 Q(TE T)-.44 E
2.75(OR)-.198 G(FC EDIT)-2.75 E(OR: PLEASE DELETE THIS NO)-.198 E
(TE UPON)-.44 E(PUBLICA)125.8 98 Q(TION.)-1.221 E
(Changes from draft-ietf-dccp-problem-02.txt:)125.8 124 Q 2.75(*A)125.8
150 S(dded a table of contents.)-2.75 E
(Changes from draft-ietf-dccp-problem-01.txt:)125.8 176 Q 2.75(*A)125.8
202 S(dd references to RFCs 2914 and 3714.)-2.75 E(Edits.)5.5 E 2.75(*M)
125.8 228 S(ak)-2.75 E 2.75(eh)-.11 G(istorical-record moti)-2.75 E
-.275(va)-.275 G(tion clearer).275 E(.)-.605 E 2.75(*F)125.8 254 S
(airer description of PR-SCTP)-2.915 E(.)-1.221 E 2.75(*U)125.8 280 S
(pdated addresses for Mark, Eddie.)-2.75 E 2.75(*A)125.8 306 S
(dded Security Considerations and IAN)-2.75 E 2.75(AC)-.385 G
(onsiderations sections.)-2.75 E
(Changes from draft-ietf-dccp-problem-00.txt:)125.8 332 Q 2.75(*U)125.8
358 S(pdated references, minor editing changes.)-2.75 E
(Changes from draft-\215o)125.8 384 Q(yd-dcp-problem-01.txt:)-.11 E 2.75
(*A)125.8 410 S(dded an "Ackno)-2.75 E(wledgements" section.)-.275 E
2.75(*A)125.8 436 S(dded a section on "T)-2.75 E
(ransport Requirements of Request/Response)-.385 E(Applications")125.8
449 Q(Changes in response to feedback from Spencer Da)125.8 475 Q
(wkins:)-.165 E 2.75(*S)125.8 501 S(mall phrasing changes.)-2.75 E 2.75
(*A)125.8 527 S(dded a section on Design Preferences in the be)-2.75 E
(ginning.)-.165 E 2.75(*A)125.8 553 S(dded a b)-2.75 E
(ullet about "Interactions with N)-.22 E -1.221(AT)-.385 G 2.75(sa)1.221
G(nd Fire)-2.75 E -.11(wa)-.275 G(lls" under).11 E
("Additional Design Considerations".)125.8 566 Q 2.75(*A)125.8 592 S
(dded a paragraph to the section on "Dif)-2.75 E
(\214culties with ECN" about the)-.275 E
(possibility that in times of congestion, routers w)125.8 605 Q
(ould \214rst "turn of)-.11 E(f" the use of)-.275 E(ECN to UDP \215o)
125.8 618 Q(ws.)-.275 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 293.51
(ohler [P)-.385 F(age 2])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 3 3
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E/F1 13/Times-Bold@0 SF -1.196
(Ta)253.526 85 S(ble of Contents)1.196 E/F2 10/Times-Roman@0 SF
(1. Introduction)125.8 110 Q F0 11(....................)2.26 G F2(4)11.5
E(2. Problem Space)125.8 122 Q F0 11(...................)5.18 G F2(4)
11.5 E(2.1. Congestion Control for Unreliable T)140.8 134 Q(ransfer)-.35
E F0 11(.........)6.94 G F2(5)11.5 E(2.2. Ov)140.8 146 Q(erhead)-.15 E
F0 11(...................)4.23 G F2(6)11.5 E(2.3. Fire)140.8 158 Q -.1
(wa)-.25 G(ll T).1 E(ra)-.35 E -.15(ve)-.2 G(rsal).15 E F0 11
(................)11.66 G F2(6)11.5 E(2.4. P)140.8 170 Q(arameter Ne)
-.15 E(gotiation)-.15 E F0 11(...............)7.99 G F2(7)11.5 E
(3. Solution Space for Congestion Control of Unreliable Flo)125.8 182 Q
(ws)-.25 E F0 11(......)6.4 G F2(7)11.5 E(3.1. Pro)140.8 194 Q
(viding Congestion Control Abo)-.15 E .3 -.15(ve U)-.15 H(DP).15 E F0 11
(.........)8.67 G F2(7)11.5 E
(3.1.1. The Burden on the Application Designer)155.8 206 Q F0 11
(........)8.67 G F2(7)11.5 E(3.1.2. Dif)155.8 218 Q
(\214culties with ECN)-.25 E F0 11(..............)1.67 G F2(8)11.5 E
(3.1.3. The Ev)155.8 230 Q(asion of Congestion Control)-.25 E F0 11
(..........)2.23 G F2(9)11.5 E(3.2. Pro)140.8 242 Q
(viding Congestion Control Belo)-.15 E 2.5(wU)-.25 G(DP)-2.5 E F0 11
(.........)9.17 G F2(9)11.5 E
(3.2.1. Case 1: Congestion Feedback at the Application)155.8 254 Q F0 11
(......)6.44 G F2(9)11.5 E
(3.2.2. Case 2: Congestion Feedback at a Layer belo)155.8 266 Q 2.5(wU)
-.25 G(DP)-2.5 E F0 11(.....)2.68 G F2(10)6.5 E(3.3. Pro)140.8 278 Q
(viding Congestion Control at the T)-.15 E(ransport Layer)-.35 E F0 11
(......)9.99 G F2(10)6.5 E(3.3.1. Modifying TCP?)155.8 290 Q F0 11
(...............)7.39 G F2(10)6.5 E(3.3.2. Unreliable V)155.8 302 Q
(ariants of SCTP?)-1.11 E F0 11(...........)11.3 G F2(11)6.5 E
(3.3.3. Modifying R)155.8 314 Q(TP?)-.6 E F0 11(...............)7.99 G
F2(12)6.5 E(3.3.4. Designing a Ne)155.8 326 Q 2.5(wT)-.25 G
(ransport Protocol)-2.85 E F0 11(.........)11.35 G F2(12)6.5 E
(4. Selling Congestion Control to Reluctant Applications)125.8 338 Q F0
11(........)2.52 G F2(12)6.5 E(5. Additional Design Considerations)125.8
350 Q F0 11(.............)11.84 G F2(13)6.5 E(6. T)125.8 362 Q
(ransport Requirements of Request/Response Applications)-.35 E F0 11
(......)7.35 G F2(13)6.5 E(7. Summary of Recommendations)125.8 374 Q F0
11(..............)7.54 G F2(14)6.5 E(8. Security Considerations)125.8
386 Q F0 11(................)10.87 G F2(15)6.5 E(9. IAN)125.8 398 Q 2.5
(AC)-.35 G(onsiderations)-2.5 E F0 11(.................)5.81 G F2(15)6.5
E(10. Ackno)125.8 410 Q(wledgements)-.25 E F0 11(.................)8.77
G F2(15)6.5 E(11. Informati)125.8 422 Q .3 -.15(ve R)-.25 H(eferences)
.15 E F0 11(................)7.97 G F2(15)6.5 E(12. Authors' Addresses)
125.8 434 Q F0 11(.................)8.8 G F2(16)6.5 E(13. Full Cop)125.8
446 Q(yright Statement)-.1 E F0 11(................).12 G F2(16)6.5 E
(14. Intellectual Property)125.8 458 Q F0 11(.................)6.02 G F2
(17)6.5 E F0(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 293.51(ohler [P)
-.385 F(age 3])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 4 4
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF(1.)72
85 Q/F2 14/Times-Bold@0 SF(Intr)5.5 E(oduction)-.252 E F0(Historically)
100.8 101.6 Q 2.75(,t)-.715 G
(he great majority of Internet unicast traf)-2.75 E
(\214c has used congestion-controlled)-.275 E(TCP)100.8 114.6 Q 2.75(,w)
-1.221 G(ith UDP making up most of the remainder)-2.75 E 5.5(.U)-.605 G
(DP has mainly been used for short,)-5.5 E
(request-response transfers, lik)100.8 127.6 Q 2.75(eD)-.11 G
(NS and SNMP)-2.75 E 2.75(,t)-1.221 G(hat wish to a)-2.75 E -.22(vo)-.22
G(id TCP').22 E 2.75(st)-.605 G(hree-w)-2.75 E(ay)-.11 E(handshak)100.8
140.6 Q(e, retransmission, and/or stateful connections.)-.11 E
(UDP also a)5.5 E -.22(vo)-.22 G(ids TCP').22 E 2.75(sb)-.605 G(uilt-in)
-2.97 E(end-to-end congestion control, and UDP applications tended not \
to implement their o)100.8 153.6 Q(wn)-.275 E(congestion control.)100.8
166.6 Q(Ho)5.5 E(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, s).165 H
(ince UDP traf).44 E(\214c v)-.275 E(olume w)-.22 E(as small relati)-.11
E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75(oc).165 G(ongestion-)-2.75 E
(controlled TCP \215o)100.8 179.6 Q(ws, the netw)-.275 E(ork didn')-.11
E 2.75(tc)-.198 G(ollapse.)-2.75 E(Recent years ha)100.8 196.2 Q .33
-.165(ve s)-.22 H(een the gro).165 E
(wth of applications that use UDP in a dif)-.275 E(ferent w)-.275 E(ay)
-.11 E 5.5(.T)-.715 G(hese)-5.5 E
(applications, including streaming audio, Internet telephon)100.8 209.2
Q 1.43 -.715(y, a)-.165 H(nd multiplayer and massi).715 E -.165(ve)-.275
G(ly).165 E(multiplayer on-line g)100.8 222.2 Q
(ames, share a preference for timeliness o)-.055 E -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75
(rr).165 G(eliability)-2.75 E 5.5(.T)-.715 G(CP can)-5.5 E
(introduce arbitrary delay because of its reliability and in-order deli)
100.8 235.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G(ry requirements; thus,).165 E
(the applications use UDP instead.)100.8 248.2 Q(This gro)5.5 E
(wth of long-li)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(dn).165 G
(on-congestion-controlled)-2.75 E(traf)100.8 261.2 Q(\214c, relati)-.275
E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75(oc).165 G(ongestion-controlled traf)-2.75
E(\214c, poses a real threat to the o)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.165 G
(rall health of).165 E(the Internet [RFC 2914, RFC 3714].)100.8 274.2 Q
(Applications could implement their o)100.8 290.8 Q
(wn congestion control mechanisms on a case-by-case)-.275 E
(basis, with encouragement from the IETF)100.8 303.8 Q 5.5(.S)-.88 G
(ome already do this.)-5.5 E(Ho)5.5 E(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88
-.44(r, e).165 H(xperience).275 E(sho)100.8 316.8 Q
(ws that congestion control is dif)-.275 E
(\214cult to get right, and man)-.275 E 2.75(ya)-.165 G
(pplication writers w)-2.75 E(ould)-.11 E(lik)100.8 329.8 Q 2.75(et)-.11
G 2.75(oa)-2.75 G -.22(vo)-2.97 G(id rein).22 E -.165(ve)-.44 G
(nting this particular wheel.).165 E 1.76 -.88(We b)5.5 H(elie).88 E .33
-.165(ve t)-.275 H(hat a ne).165 E 2.75(wp)-.275 G(rotocol is needed,)
-2.75 E(one that combines unreliable datagram deli)100.8 342.8 Q -.165
(ve)-.275 G(ry with b).165 E(uilt-in congestion control.)-.22 E(This)5.5
E(protocol will act as an enabling technology: e)100.8 355.8 Q
(xisting and ne)-.165 E 2.75(wa)-.275 G(pplications could easily use)
-2.75 E(it to transfer timely data without destabilizing the Internet.)
100.8 368.8 Q(This document pro)100.8 385.4 Q
(vides a problem statement for such a protocol.)-.165 E 1.76 -.88(We l)
5.5 H(ist the properties the).88 E(protocol should ha)100.8 398.4 Q
-.165(ve)-.22 G 2.75(,t).165 G(hen e)-2.75 E(xplain wh)-.165 E 2.75(yt)
-.055 G(hose properties are necessary)-2.75 E 5.5(.W)-.715 G 2.75(ed)
-6.38 G(escribe wh)-2.75 E 2.75(ya)-.055 G(ne)100.8 411.4 Q 2.75(wp)
-.275 G(rotocol is the best solution for the more general problem of br\
inging congestion)-2.75 E(control to unreliable \215o)100.8 424.4 Q
(ws of unicast datagrams, and discuss brie\215y subsidiary)-.275 E
(requirements for mobility)100.8 437.4 Q 2.75(,d)-.715 G(efense ag)-2.75
E(ainst DOS attacks and spoo\214ng, interoperation with)-.055 E -.66(RT)
100.8 450.4 S 2.442 -1.221(P, a).66 H(nd interactions with N)1.221 E
-1.221(AT)-.385 G 2.75(sa)1.221 G(nd \214re)-2.75 E -.11(wa)-.275 G
(lls.).11 E(One of the design preferences that we bring to this questio\
n is a preference for a clean,)100.8 467 Q(understandable, lo)100.8 480
Q(w-o)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.165 G(rhead, and minimal protocol.).165 E
(As described later in this document,)5.5 E
(this results in the design decision to lea)100.8 493 Q .33 -.165(ve f)
-.22 H(unctionality such as reliability or F).165 E(orw)-.165 E
(ard Error)-.11 E
(Correction \(FEC\) to be layered on top, rather than pro)100.8 506 Q
(vided in the transport protocol itself.)-.165 E(This document be)100.8
522.6 Q -.055(ga)-.165 G 2.75(ni).055 G 2.75(n2)-2.75 G
(002 as a formalization of the goals of DCCP)-2.75 E 2.75(,t)-1.221 G
(he Datagram)-2.75 E(Congestion Control Protocol [DCCP].)100.8 535.6 Q
1.76 -.88(We i)5.5 H(ntended DCCP to satisfy this problem).88 E
(statement, and thus the original reasoning behind man)100.8 548.6 Q
2.75(yo)-.165 G 2.75(fD)-2.75 G(CCP')-2.75 E 2.75(sd)-.605 G
(esign choices can be)-2.75 E(found here.)100.8 561.6 Q(Ho)5.5 E(we)
-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, w).165 H 2.75(eb).44 G(elie)-2.75 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G(d, and continue to belie).165 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75
(,t).165 G(hat the problem should be)-2.75 E(solv)100.8 574.6 Q
(ed whether or not DCCP is the chosen solution.)-.165 E F1(2.)72 600.6 Q
F2(Pr)5.5 E(oblem Space)-.252 E F0 1.76 -.88(We p)100.8 617.2 T(ercei)
.88 E .33 -.165(ve a n)-.275 H
(umber of problems related to the use of unreliable data \215o).165 E
(ws in the)-.275 E 2.75(Internet. The)100.8 630.2 R(major issues are:)
2.75 E 7.15<8354>100.8 646.8 S
(he potential for non-congestion-controlled datagram \215o)-7.15 E
(ws to cause congestion collapse)-.275 E(of the netw)111.8 659.8 Q 2.75
(ork. \(See)-.11 F
(Section 5 of [RFC 2914] and Section 2 of [RFC 3714].\))2.75 E 7.15
<8354>100.8 676.4 S(he dif)-7.15 E
(\214culty of correctly implementing ef)-.275 E(fecti)-.275 E .33 -.165
(ve c)-.275 H(ongestion control mechanisms for).165 E
(unreliable datagram \215o)111.8 689.4 Q(ws.)-.275 E 7.15<8354>100.8 706
S(he lack of a standard solution for reliably transmitting congestion f\
eedback for an)-7.15 E(unreliable data \215o)111.8 719 Q -.715(w.)-.275
G(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 244.01(ohler Section)-.385 F
2.75(2. [P)2.75 F(age 4])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 5 5
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E 7.15<8354>100.8 85 S
(he lack of a standard solution for ne)-7.15 E
(gotiating Explicit Congestion Noti\214cation \(ECN\))-.165 E
([RFC 2481] usage for unreliable \215o)111.8 98 Q(ws.)-.275 E 7.15<8354>
100.8 114.6 S
(he lack of a choice of TCP-friendly congestion control mechanisms.)
-7.15 E 1.76 -.88(We a)100.8 131.2 T
(ssume that most application writers w).88 E
(ould use congestion control for long-li)-.11 E -.165(ve)-.275 G(d).165
E(unreliable \215o)100.8 144.2 Q(ws if it w)-.275 E(as a)-.11 E -.275
(va)-.22 G(ilable in a standard, easy-to-use form.).275 E
(More minor issues include:)100.8 160.8 Q 7.15<8354>100.8 177.4 S
(he dif)-7.15 E(\214culty of deplo)-.275 E
(ying applications using UDP-based \215o)-.11 E(ws in the presence of)
-.275 E(\214re)111.8 190.4 Q -.11(wa)-.275 G(lls.).11 E 7.15<8354>100.8
207 S(he desire to ha)-7.15 E .33 -.165(ve a s)-.22 H(ingle w).165 E
(ay to ne)-.11 E(gotiate congestion control parameters for unreliable)
-.165 E<8d6f>111.8 220 Q
(ws, independently of the signalling protocol used to set up the \215o)
-.275 E -.715(w.)-.275 G 7.15<8354>100.8 236.6 S(he desire for lo)-7.15
E 2.75(wp)-.275 G(er)-2.75 E(-pack)-.22 E(et byte o)-.11 E -.165(ve)
-.165 G(rhead.).165 E(The subsections belo)100.8 253.2 Q 2.75(wd)-.275 G
(iscuss these problems of pro)-2.75 E(viding congestion control, tra)
-.165 E -.165(ve)-.22 G(rsing).165 E(\214re)100.8 266.2 Q -.11(wa)-.275
G(lls, and ne).11 E(gotiating parameters in more detail.)-.165 E 2.75
(As)5.5 G(eparate subsection also discusses)-2.75 E
(the problem of minimizing the o)100.8 279.2 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G
(rhead of pack).165 E(et headers.)-.11 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF(2.1.)72
308.8 Q/F2 13/Times-Bold@0 SF(Congestion Contr)5.5 E(ol f)-.234 E
(or Unr)-.325 E(eliable T)-.234 E(ransfer)-.962 E F0 1.76 -.88(We a)
100.8 325.4 T(im to bring easy-to-use congestion control mechanisms to \
applications that generate).88 E(lar)100.8 338.4 Q(ge or long-li)-.198 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75<648d>.165 G -.275(ow)-2.75 G 2.75(so).275 G 2.75
(fu)-2.75 G(nreliable datagrams, such as RealAudio, Internet telephon)
-2.75 E -.715(y,)-.165 G(and multiplayer g)100.8 351.4 Q 2.75(ames. Our)
-.055 F(moti)2.75 E -.275(va)-.275 G(tion is to a).275 E -.22(vo)-.22 G
(id congestion collapse.).22 E(\(The short \215o)5.5 E(ws)-.275 E
(generated by request-response applications, such as DNS, SNMP)100.8
364.4 Q 2.75(,a)-1.221 G(nd SIP [RFC 3261],)-2.75 E(don')100.8 377.4 Q
2.75(tc)-.198 G(ause congestion in practice, and an)-2.75 E 2.75(yc)
-.165 G(ongestion control mechanism w)-2.75 E(ould tak)-.11 E(e)-.11 E
(ef)100.8 390.4 Q(fect between \215o)-.275 E
(ws, not within a single end-to-end transfer of information.\))-.275 E
(Ho)5.5 E(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G -.44(r,).165 G(before designing a\
 congestion control mechanism for these applications, we must)100.8
403.4 Q(understand wh)100.8 416.4 Q 2.75(yt)-.055 G(he)-2.75 E 2.75(yu)
-.165 G(se unreliable datagrams in the \214rst place, lest we destro)
-2.75 E 2.75(yt)-.11 G(he v)-2.75 E(ery)-.165 E(properties the)100.8
429.4 Q 2.75(yr)-.165 G(equire.)-2.75 E(There are se)100.8 446 Q -.165
(ve)-.275 G(ral reasons wh).165 E 2.75(yp)-.055 G
(rotocols currently use UDP instead of TCP)-2.75 E 2.75(,a)-1.221 G
(mongst them:)-2.75 E 7.15<8353>100.8 462.6 S(tartup Delay: the)-7.15 E
2.75(yw)-.165 G(ish to a)-2.75 E -.22(vo)-.22 G
(id the delay of a three-w).22 E(ay handshak)-.11 E 2.75(eb)-.11 G
(efore initiating)-2.75 E(data transfer)111.8 475.6 Q(.)-.605 E 7.15
<8353>100.8 492.2 S(tatelessness: the)-7.15 E 2.75(yw)-.165 G(ish to a)
-2.75 E -.22(vo)-.22 G
(id holding connection state, and the potential state-).22 E
(holding attacks that come with this.)111.8 505.2 Q 7.15<8354>100.8
521.8 S(rading of Reliability ag)-7.535 E(ainst T)-.055 E
(iming: the data being sent is timely in the sense that if it)-.385 E
(is not deli)111.8 534.8 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G
(red by some deadline \(typically a small number of R).165 E
(TTs\) then the data will)-.66 E(not be useful at the recei)111.8 547.8
Q -.165(ve)-.275 G -.605(r.).165 G
(Of these issues, applications that generate lar)100.8 564.4 Q
(ge or long-li)-.198 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75<648d>.165 G -.275(ow)-2.75
G 2.75(so).275 G 2.75(fd)-2.75 G(atagrams, such as)-2.75 E
(media transfer and g)100.8 577.4 Q
(ames, mostly care about controlling the tradeof)-.055 E 2.75(fb)-.275 G
(etween timing and)-2.75 E(reliability)100.8 590.4 Q 5.5(.S)-.715 G
(uch applications use UDP because when the)-5.5 E 2.75(ys)-.165 G
(end a datagram, the)-2.75 E 2.75(yw)-.165 G(ish to)-2.75 E
(send the most appropriate data in that datagram.)100.8 603.4 Q
(If the datagram is lost, the)5.5 E 2.75(ym)-.165 G(ay or may)-2.75 E(n\
ot resend the same data, depending on whether the data will still be us\
eful at the recei)100.8 616.4 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G -.605(r.).165 G
(Data may no longer be useful for man)100.8 629.4 Q 2.75(yr)-.165 G
(easons:)-2.75 E 7.15<8349>100.8 646 S 2.75(nat)-7.15 G(elephon)-2.75 E
2.75(yo)-.165 G 2.75(rs)-2.75 G(treaming video session, data in a pack)
-2.75 E(et comprises a timeslice of a)-.11 E(continuous stream.)111.8
659 Q(Once a timeslice has been played out, the ne)5.5 E
(xt timeslice is required)-.165 E(immediately)111.8 672 Q 5.5(.I)-.715 G
2.75(ft)-5.5 G(he data comprising that timeslice arri)-2.75 E -.165(ve)
-.275 G 2.75(sa).165 G 2.75(ts)-2.75 G(ome later time, then it is no)
-2.75 E(longer useful.)111.8 685 Q
(Such applications can cope with masking the ef)5.5 E
(fects of missing pack)-.275 E(ets to)-.11 E(some e)111.8 698 Q
(xtent, so when the sender transmits its ne)-.165 E(xt pack)-.165 E
(et, it is important for it to only)-.11 E
(send data that has a good chance of arri)111.8 711 Q
(ving in time for its playout.)-.275 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E
(y/K)-.165 E 235.76(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(2.1. [P)2.75 F(age 5])
-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 6 6
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E 7.15<8349>100.8 85 S 2.75
(na)-7.15 G 2.75(ni)-2.75 G(nteracti)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve g)-.275 H
(ame or virtual-reality session, position information is transient.).11
E(If a)5.5 E(datagram containing position information is lost, resendin\
g the old position does not)111.8 98 Q(usually mak)111.8 111 Q 2.75(es)
-.11 G(ense -- rather)-2.75 E 2.75(,e)-.44 G -.165(ve)-3.025 G
(ry position information datagram should contain the).165 E
(latest position information.)111.8 124 Q
(In a congestion-controlled \215o)100.8 140.6 Q 1.43 -.715(w, t)-.275 H
(he allo).715 E(wed pack)-.275 E(et sending rate depends on measured)
-.11 E(netw)100.8 153.6 Q(ork congestion.)-.11 E
(Thus, some control is gi)5.5 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(nu).165 G 2.75(pt)
-2.75 G 2.75(ot)-2.75 G(he congestion control mechanism,)-2.75 E
(which determines precisely when pack)100.8 166.6 Q(ets can be sent.)
-.11 E(Ho)5.5 E(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, a).165 H
(pplications could still).44 E(decide,)100.8 179.6 Q/F1 11
/Times-Italic@0 SF(at tr)2.75 E(ansmission time)-.165 E(,)-.11 E F0
(which information to put in a pack)2.75 E 2.75(et. TCP)-.11 F(doesn')
2.75 E 2.75(ta)-.198 G(llo)-2.75 E(w)-.275 E(control o)100.8 192.6 Q
-.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rt).165 G(his; these applications demand it.)-2.75
E(Often, these applications \(especially g)100.8 209.2 Q
(ames and telephon)-.055 E 2.75(ya)-.165 G(pplications\) w)-2.75 E
(ork on v)-.11 E(ery short)-.165 E(playout timescales.)100.8 222.2 Q
(Whilst the)5.5 E 2.75(ya)-.165 G
(re usually able to adjust their transmission rate based on)-2.75 E
(congestion feedback, the)100.8 235.2 Q 2.75(yd)-.165 G 2.75(oh)-2.75 G
-2.475 -.22(av e)-2.75 H(constraints on ho)2.97 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(his adaptation can be performed so)-2.75 E
(that it has minimal impact on the quality of the session.)100.8 248.2 Q
(Thus, the)5.5 E 2.75(yt)-.165 G(end to need some)-2.75 E(control o)
100.8 261.2 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rt).165 G(he short-term dynamics of\
 the congestion control algorithm, whilst being f)-2.75 E(air)-.11 E
(to other traf)100.8 274.2 Q(\214c on medium timescales.)-.275 E
(This control includes, b)5.5 E(ut is not limited to, some)-.22 E(in\
\215uence on which congestion control algorithm should be used -- for e)
100.8 287.2 Q(xample, TFRC)-.165 E(rather than strict TCP-lik)100.8
300.2 Q 2.75(ec)-.11 G(ongestion control.)-2.75 E
(\(TCP-Friendly Rate Control, or TFRC, has)5.5 E(been standardized in t\
he IETF as a congestion control mechanism that adjusts its sending)100.8
313.2 Q(rate more smoothly than TCP does, while maintaining long-term f)
100.8 326.2 Q(air bandwidth sharing)-.11 E(with TCP [RFC 3448].\))100.8
339.2 Q/F2 11/Times-Bold@0 SF(2.2.)72 368.8 Q/F3 13/Times-Bold@0 SF(Ov)
5.5 E(erhead)-.13 E F0(The applications we are concerned with often sen\
d compressed data, or send frequent small)100.8 385.4 Q(pack)100.8 398.4
Q 2.75(ets. F)-.11 F(or e)-.165 E(xample, when internet telephon)-.165 E
2.75(yo)-.165 G 2.75(rs)-2.75 G(treaming media are used o)-2.75 E -.165
(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rl).165 G -.275(ow)-2.75 G(-).275 E(bandwidth modem li\
nks, highly compressing the payload data is essential.)100.8 411.4 Q
-.165(Fo)5.5 G 2.75(ri).165 G(nternet)-2.75 E(telephon)100.8 424.4 Q
2.75(ya)-.165 G(pplications and for g)-2.75 E
(ames, the requirement is for lo)-.055 E 2.75(wd)-.275 G(elay)-2.75 E
2.75(,a)-.715 G(nd hence small)-2.75 E(pack)100.8 437.4 Q
(ets are sent frequently)-.11 E(.)-.715 E -.165(Fo)100.8 454 S 2.75(re)
.165 G(xample, a telephon)-2.915 E 2.75(ya)-.165 G
(pplication sending a 5.6Kbps data stream b)-2.75 E(ut w)-.22 E(anting)
-.11 E(moderately lo)100.8 467 Q 2.75(wd)-.275 G(elay may send a pack)
-2.75 E(et e)-.11 E -.165(ve)-.275 G
(ry 20ms, sending only 14 data bytes in each).165 E(pack)100.8 480 Q
2.75(et. In)-.11 F(addition, 20 bytes is tak)2.75 E
(en up by the IP header)-.11 E 2.75(,w)-.44 G(ith additional bytes for)
-2.75 E(transport and/or application headers.)100.8 493 Q(Clearly)5.5 E
2.75(,f)-.715 G(or such an application it is desirable to ha)-2.75 E
-.165(ve)-.22 G 2.75(al)100.8 506 S .55 -.275(ow o)-2.75 H -.165(ve).11
G(rhead for the transport protocol header).165 E(.)-.605 E
(In some cases the correct solution w)100.8 522.6 Q
(ould be to use link-based pack)-.11 E(et header compression to)-.11 E
(compress the pack)100.8 535.6 Q
(et headers, although we cannot guarantee the a)-.11 E -.275(va)-.22 G
(ilability of such).275 E(compression schemes on an)100.8 548.6 Q 2.75
(yp)-.165 G(articular link.)-2.75 E
(The delay of data until after the completion of a handshak)100.8 565.2
Q 2.75(ea)-.11 G(lso represents potentially)-2.75 E(unnecessary o)100.8
578.2 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G(rhead. A ne).165 E 2.75(wp)-.275 G
(rotocol might therefore allo)-2.75 E 2.75(ws)-.275 G
(enders to include some data)-2.75 E(on their initial datagrams.)100.8
591.2 Q F2(2.3.)72 617.2 Q F3(Fir)5.5 E(ewall T)-.234 E(ra)-.962 E -.13
(ve)-.325 G(rsal).13 E F0(Applications requiring a \215o)100.8 633.8 Q
2.75(wo)-.275 G 2.75(fu)-2.75 G
(nreliable datagrams currently tend to use signalling)-2.75 E
(protocols such as R)100.8 646.8 Q
(TSP [RFC 2326], SIP and H.323 in conjunction with UDP for the data)-.66
E<8d6f>100.8 659.8 Q 4.18 -.715(w. T)-.275 H(he initial setup request u\
ses a signalling protocol to locate the correct remote end-).715 E
(system for the data \215o)100.8 672.8 Q 1.43 -.715(w, s)-.275 H
(ometimes being redirected or relayed to other machines, before).715 E
(the data \215o)100.8 685.8 Q 2.75(wi)-.275 G 2.75(se)-2.75 G
(stablished.)-2.75 E(As UDP \215o)100.8 702.4 Q(ws contain no e)-.275 E
(xplicit setup and teardo)-.165 E(wn, it is hard for \214re)-.275 E -.11
(wa)-.275 G(lls to handle).11 E(them correctly)100.8 715.4 Q 5.5(.T)
-.715 G(ypically the \214re)-6.38 E -.11(wa)-.275 G(ll needs to parse R)
.11 E(TSP)-.66 E 2.75(,S)-1.221 G(IP and H.323 to obtain the)-2.75 E
(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 235.76(ohler Section)-.385 F
2.75(2.3. [P)2.75 F(age 6])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 7 7
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E
(information necessary to open a hole in the \214re)100.8 85 Q -.11(wa)
-.275 G 2.75(ll. Alternati).11 F -.165(ve)-.275 G(ly).165 E 2.75(,f)
-.715 G(or bi-directional \215o)-2.75 E(ws,)-.275 E(the \214re)100.8 98
Q -.11(wa)-.275 G(ll can open a bi-directional hole if it recei).11 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(saU).165 G(DP pack)-2.75 E(et from inside the)-.11
E(\214re)100.8 111 Q -.11(wa)-.275 G(ll, b).11 E
(ut in this case the \214re)-.22 E -.11(wa)-.275 G(ll can').11 E 2.75
(te)-.198 G(asily kno)-2.75 E 2.75(ww)-.275 G(hen to close the hole ag)
-2.75 E(ain.)-.055 E
(While we do not consider these to be major problems, the)100.8 127.6 Q
2.75(ya)-.165 G(re nonetheless issues that)-2.75 E
(application designers f)100.8 140.6 Q 2.75(ace. Currently)-.11 F
(streaming media players attempt UDP \214rst, and then)2.75 E
(switch to TCP if UDP is not successful.)100.8 153.6 Q
(Streaming media o)5.5 E -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rT).165 G
(CP is undesirable, and can)-2.75 E(result in the recei)100.8 166.6 Q
-.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(rn).165 G
(eeding to temporarily halt playout while it "reb)-2.75 E(uf)-.22 E
(fers" data.)-.275 E -.77(Te)100.8 179.6 S(lephon).77 E 2.75(ya)-.165 G
(pplications don')-2.75 E 2.75(te)-.198 G -.165(ve)-3.025 G 2.75(nh).165
G -2.475 -.22(av e)-2.75 H(this option.)2.97 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF
(2.4.)72 205.6 Q/F2 13/Times-Bold@0 SF -.13(Pa)5.5 G
(rameter Negotiation).13 E F0(Dif)100.8 222.2 Q(ferent applications ha)
-.275 E .33 -.165(ve d)-.22 H(if).165 E
(ferent requirements for congestion control, which may map)-.275 E
(into dif)100.8 235.2 Q(ferent congestion feedback.)-.275 E
(Examples include ECN capability and desired)5.5 E(congestion control d\
ynamics \(the choice of congestion control algorithm and, therefore, th\
e)100.8 248.2 Q(form of feedback information required\).)100.8 261.2 Q
(Such parameters need to be reliably ne)5.5 E(gotiated)-.165 E
(before congestion control can function correctly)100.8 274.2 Q(.)-.715
E(While this ne)100.8 290.8 Q
(gotiation could be performed using signalling protocols such as SIP)
-.165 E 2.75(,R)-1.221 G(TSP)-3.41 E(and H.323, it w)100.8 303.8 Q
(ould be desirable to ha)-.11 E .33 -.165(ve a s)-.22 H
(ingle standard w).165 E(ay of ne)-.11 E(gotiating these)-.165 E
(transport parameters.)100.8 316.8 Q
(This is of particular importance with ECN, where sending ECN-)5.5 E
(mark)100.8 329.8 Q(ed pack)-.11 E(ets to a non-ECN-capable recei)-.11 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(rc).165 G
(an cause signi\214cant congestion problems)-2.75 E(to other \215o)100.8
342.8 Q 2.75(ws. W)-.275 F 2.75(ed)-.88 G
(iscuss the ECN issue in more detail belo)-2.75 E -.715(w.)-.275 G F1
(3.)72 368.8 Q/F3 14/Times-Bold@0 SF(Solution Space f)5.5 E
(or Congestion Contr)-.35 E(ol of Unr)-.252 E(eliable Flo)-.252 E(ws)
-.14 E F0 1.76 -.88(We t)100.8 385.4 T(hus w).88 E(ant to pro)-.11 E
(vide congestion control for unreliable \215o)-.165 E(ws, pro)-.275 E
(viding both ECN and)-.165 E(the choice of dif)100.8 398.4 Q
(ferent forms of congestion control, and pro)-.275 E(viding moderate o)
-.165 E -.165(ve)-.165 G(rhead in).165 E(terms of pack)100.8 411.4 Q
(et size, state, and CPU processing.)-.11 E
(There are a number of options for)5.5 E(pro)100.8 424.4 Q
(viding end-to-end congestion control for the unicast traf)-.165 E
(\214c that currently uses UDP)-.275 E 2.75(,i)-1.221 G(n)-2.75 E
(terms of the layer that pro)100.8 437.4 Q
(vides the congestion control mechanism:)-.165 E 7.15<8343>100.8 454 S
(ongestion control abo)-7.15 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H(DP).165 E(.)-1.221
E 7.15<8343>100.8 470.6 S(ongestion control belo)-7.15 E 2.75(wU)-.275 G
(DP)-2.75 E(.)-1.221 E 7.15<8343>100.8 487.2 S
(ongestion control at the transport layer in an alternati)-7.15 E .33
-.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75(oU).165 G(DP)-2.75 E(.)-1.221 E 1.76 -.88(We e)
100.8 503.8 T(xplore these alternati).715 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(si)
.165 G 2.75(nt)-2.75 G(he sections belo)-2.75 E 4.18 -.715(w. T)-.275 H
(he concerns from the discussions).715 E(belo)100.8 516.8 Q 2.75(wh)
-.275 G -2.475 -.22(av e)-2.75 H(con)2.97 E(vinced us that the best w)
-.44 E(ay to pro)-.11 E(vide congestion control for unreliable)-.165 E
<8d6f>100.8 529.8 Q(ws is to pro)-.275 E
(vide congestion control at the transport layer)-.165 E 2.75(,a)-.44 G
2.75(sa)-2.75 G 2.75(na)-2.75 G(lternati)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H
2.75(ot).165 G(he use of)-2.75 E(UDP and TCP)100.8 542.8 Q(.)-1.221 E F1
(3.1.)72 568.8 Q F2(Pr)5.5 E -.13(ov)-.234 G(iding Congestion Contr).13
E(ol Abo)-.234 E .26 -.13(ve U)-.13 H(DP).13 E F0(One possibility w)
100.8 585.4 Q(ould be to pro)-.11 E
(vide congestion control at the application layer)-.165 E 2.75(,o)-.44 G
2.75(ra)-2.75 G 2.75(ts)-2.75 G(ome)-2.75 E(other layer abo)100.8 598.4
Q .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H(DP).165 E 5.5(.T)-1.221 G(his w)-5.5 E
(ould allo)-.11 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(he congestion control mechanism to be closely)-2.75 E(inte)100.8 611.4
Q(grated with the application itself.)-.165 E F1 2.75(3.1.1. The)72
637.4 R(Burden on the A)2.75 E(pplication Designer)-.275 E F0 2.75(Ak)
100.8 654 S .33 -.165(ey d)-2.86 H(isadv).165 E(antage of pro)-.275 E
(viding congestion control abo)-.165 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H
(DP is that it places an).165 E(unnecessary b)100.8 667 Q
(urden on the application-le)-.22 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(ld).165 G
(esigner)-2.75 E 2.75(,w)-.44 G(ho might be just as happ)-2.75 E 2.75
(yt)-.11 G 2.75(ou)-2.75 G(se)-2.75 E(the congestion control pro)100.8
680 Q(vided by a lo)-.165 E(wer layer)-.275 E 5.5(.I)-.605 G 2.75(ft)
-5.5 G(he application can rely on a lo)-2.75 E(wer)-.275 E
(layer that gi)100.8 693 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(sac).165 G
(hoice between TCP-lik)-2.75 E 2.75(eo)-.11 G 2.75(rT)-2.75 G(FRC-lik)
-2.75 E 2.75(ec)-.11 G(ongestion control, and that)-2.75 E(of)100.8 706
Q(fers ECN, then this might be highly satisf)-.275 E(actory to man)-.11
E 2.75(ya)-.165 G(pplication designers.)-2.75 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)
-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 227.51(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(3.1.1. [P)2.75 F
(age 7])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 8 8
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E(The long history of deb)
100.8 85 Q(ugging TCP implementations [RFC 2525, TBIT] mak)-.22 E
(es the)-.11 E(dif)100.8 98 Q
(\214culties in implementing end-to-end congestion control ab)-.275 E
(undantly clear)-.22 E 5.5(.I)-.605 G 2.75(ti)-5.5 G 2.75(sc)-2.75 G
(learly)-2.75 E(more rob)100.8 111 Q
(ust for congestion control to be pro)-.22 E
(vided for the application by a lo)-.165 E(wer layer)-.275 E 5.5(.I)
-.605 G(n)-5.5 E(rare cases there might be compelling reasons for the c\
ongestion control mechanism to be)100.8 124 Q
(implemented in the application itself, b)100.8 137 Q(ut we do not e)
-.22 E(xpect this to be the general case.)-.165 E -.165(Fo)5.5 G(r).165
E -.165(ex)100.8 150 S(ample, applications that use R).165 E(TP o)-.66 E
-.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rU).165 G(DP might be just as happ)-2.75 E 2.75
(yi)-.11 G 2.75(fR)-2.75 G(TP itself)-3.41 E
(implemented end-to-end congestion control.)100.8 163 Q
(\(See Section 3.3.3 for more discussion of)5.5 E -.66(RT)100.8 176 S
-1.221(P.).66 G(\))1.221 E(In addition to congestion control issues, we\
 also note the problems with \214re)100.8 192.6 Q -.11(wa)-.275 G
(ll tra).11 E -.165(ve)-.22 G(rsal).165 E(and parameter ne)100.8 205.6 Q
(gotiation discussed in sections 2.3 and 2.4. Implementing on top of UD\
P)-.165 E
(requires that the application designer also address these issues.)100.8
218.6 Q/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF 2.75(3.1.2. Dif\214culties)72 244.6 R
(with ECN)2.75 E F0 2.75(As)100.8 261.2 S(econd problem of pro)-2.75 E
(viding congestion control abo)-.165 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H
(DP is that it w).165 E(ould require)-.11 E(either gi)100.8 274.2 Q
(ving up the use of ECN, or gi)-.275 E
(ving the application direct control o)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rs)
.165 G(etting and)-2.75 E(reading the ECN \214eld in the IP header)100.8
287.2 Q 5.5(.G)-.605 G -.275(iv)-5.5 G(ing up the use of ECN w).275 E
(ould be problematic,)-.11 E
(since ECN can be particularly useful for unreliable \215o)100.8 300.2 Q
(ws, where a dropped pack)-.275 E(et will not)-.11 E
(be retransmitted by the data sender)100.8 313.2 Q(.)-.605 E -.44(Wi)
100.8 329.8 S(th the de).44 E -.165(ve)-.275 G
(lopment of the ECN nonce, ECN can also be useful e).165 E -.165(ve)
-.275 G 2.75(ni).165 G 2.75(nt)-2.75 G(he absence of)-2.75 E
(ECN support from the netw)100.8 342.8 Q 2.75(ork. The)-.11 F
(data sender can use the ECN nonce, along with)2.75 E
(feedback from the data recei)100.8 355.8 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44
(r, t).165 H 2.75(ov).44 G(erify that the data recei)-2.915 E -.165(ve)
-.275 G 2.75(ri).165 G 2.75(sc)-2.75 G(orrectly reporting all lost)-2.75
E(pack)100.8 368.8 Q 2.75(ets. This)-.11 F(use of ECN can be particular\
ly useful for an application using unreliable)2.75 E(deli)100.8 381.8 Q
-.165(ve)-.275 G(ry).165 E 2.75(,w)-.715 G(here the recei)-2.75 E -.165
(ve)-.275 G 2.75(rm).165 G(ight otherwise ha)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve l)-.22
H(ittle incenti).165 E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75(or).165 G
(eport lost pack)-2.75 E(ets.)-.11 E(In order to allo)100.8 398.4 Q 2.75
(wt)-.275 G(he use of ECN by a layer abo)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H
(DP).165 E 2.75(,t)-1.221 G(he UDP sock)-2.75 E(et w)-.11 E(ould ha)-.11
E .33 -.165(ve t)-.22 H(o).165 E(allo)100.8 411.4 Q 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(he application to control the ECN \214eld in the IP header)-2.75 E 5.5
(.I)-.605 G 2.75(np)-5.5 G(articular)-2.75 E 2.75(,t)-.44 G(he UDP)-2.75
E(sock)100.8 424.4 Q(et w)-.11 E(ould ha)-.11 E .33 -.165(ve t)-.22 H
2.75(oa).165 G(llo)-2.75 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(he application to specify whether or not the ECN-Capable)-2.75 E -.385
(Tr)100.8 437.4 S(ansport \(ECT\) codepoints should be set in the ECN \
\214eld of the IP header).385 E(.)-.605 E(The ECN contract is that send\
ers who set the ECT codepoint must respond to Congestion)100.8 454 Q
(Experienced \(CE\) codepoints by reducing their sending rates.)100.8
467 Q(Therefore, the ECT)5.5 E
(codepoint can only safely be set in the pack)100.8 480 Q
(et header of a UDP pack)-.11 E(et if the follo)-.11 E(wing is)-.275 E
(guaranteed:)100.8 493 Q 7.15<8349>100.8 509.6 S 2.75(ft)-7.15 G
(he CE codepoint is set by a router)-2.75 E 2.75(,t)-.44 G(he recei)
-2.75 E(ving IP layer will pass the CE status to the)-.275 E(UDP layer)
111.8 522.6 Q 2.75(,w)-.44 G(hich will pass it to the recei)-2.75 E
(ving application at the data recei)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44
(r, a).165 H(nd:).44 E 7.15<8355>100.8 539.2 S(pon recei)-7.15 E
(ving a pack)-.275 E(et that had the CE codepoint set, the recei)-.11 E
(ving application will)-.275 E(tak)111.8 552.2 Q 2.75(et)-.11 G(he appr\
opriate congestion control action, such as informing the data sender)
-2.75 E(.)-.605 E(Ho)100.8 568.8 Q(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44
(r, t).165 H(he UDP implementation at the data sender has no w).44 E
(ay of kno)-.11 E(wing if the UDP)-.275 E
(implementation at the data recei)100.8 581.8 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75
(rh).165 G(as been upgraded to pass a CE status up to the)-2.75 E(recei)
100.8 594.8 Q(ving application, let alone whether or not the applicatio\
n will use the conformant end-)-.275 E
(to-end congestion control that goes along with use of ECN.)100.8 607.8
Q(In the absence of the widespread deplo)100.8 624.4 Q
(yment of mechanisms in routers to detect \215o)-.11 E(ws that)-.275 E
(are not using conformant congestion control, allo)100.8 637.4 Q
(wing applications arbitrary control of the)-.275 E
(ECT codepoints for UDP pack)100.8 650.4 Q(ets w)-.11 E(ould seem lik)
-.11 E 2.75(ea)-.11 G 2.75(nu)-2.75 G(nnecessary opportunity for)-2.75 E
(applications to use ECN while e)100.8 663.4 Q -.275(va)-.275 G
(ding the use of end-to-end congestion control.).275 E(Thus,)5.5 E
(there is an inherent "chick)100.8 676.4 Q(en-and-e)-.11 E
(gg" problem of whether \214rst to deplo)-.165 E 2.75(yp)-.11 G(olicing)
-2.75 E(mechanisms in routers, or \214rst to enable the use of ECN by U\
DP \215o)100.8 689.4 Q 2.75(ws. W)-.275 F(ithout the)-.44 E
(policing mechanisms in routers, we w)100.8 702.4 Q
(ould not advise adding ECN-capability to UDP)-.11 E(sock)100.8 715.4 Q
(ets at this time.)-.11 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E
227.51(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(3.1.2. [P)2.75 F(age 8])-.165 E 0 Cg
EP
%%Page: 9 9
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E(In the absence of more \214\
ne-grained mechanisms for dealing with a period of sustained)100.8 85 Q
(congestion, one possibility w)100.8 98 Q
(ould be for routers to discontinue using ECN with UDP)-.11 E(pack)100.8
111 Q(ets during the congested period, and to use ECN only with TCP or \
DCCP pack)-.11 E(ets.)-.11 E(This w)100.8 124 Q
(ould be a reasonable response, for e)-.11 E
(xample, if TCP or DCCP \215o)-.165 E(ws were found to be)-.275 E
(more lik)100.8 137 Q(ely to be using conformant end-to-end congestion \
control than were UDP \215o)-.11 E 2.75(ws. If)-.275 F
(routers were to adopt such a polic)100.8 150 Q 1.43 -.715(y, t)-.165 H
(hen DCCP \215o).715 E(ws could be more lik)-.275 E(ely to recei)-.11 E
.33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H(he).165 E
(bene\214ts of ECN in times of congestion than w)100.8 163 Q
(ould UDP \215o)-.11 E(ws.)-.275 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF 2.75
(3.1.3. The)72 189 R(Ev)2.75 E(asion of Congestion Contr)-.11 E(ol)-.198
E F0 2.75(At)100.8 205.6 S(hird problem of pro)-2.75 E
(viding congestion control abo)-.165 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H
(DP is that relying on congestion).165 E(control at the application le)
100.8 218.6 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(lm).165 G(ak)-2.75 E(es it some)-.11
E(what easier for some users to e)-.275 E -.275(va)-.275 G(de end-to-)
.275 E(end congestion control.)100.8 231.6 Q 1.76 -.88(We d)5.5 H 2.75
(on).88 G(ot claim that a transport protocol such as DCCP w)-2.75 E
(ould)-.11 E(al)100.8 244.6 Q -.11(wa)-.11 G(ys be implemented in the k)
.11 E(ernel, and do not attempt to e)-.11 E -.275(va)-.275 G
(luate the relati).275 E .33 -.165(ve d)-.275 H(if).165 E(\214culty)
-.275 E(of modifying code inside the k)100.8 257.6 Q
(ernel vs. outside the k)-.11 E(ernel in an)-.11 E 2.75(yc)-.165 G 2.75
(ase. Ho)-2.75 F(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, w).165 H(e).44
E(belie)100.8 270.6 Q .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H
(hat putting the congestion control at the transport le).165 E -.165(ve)
-.275 G 2.75(lr).165 G(ather than at the)-2.75 E(application le)100.8
283.6 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(lm).165 G(ak)-2.75 E
(es it just slightly less lik)-.11 E
(ely that users will go to the trouble of)-.11 E
(modifying the code in order to a)100.8 296.6 Q -.22(vo)-.22 G
(id using end-to-end congestion control.).22 E F1(3.2.)72 322.6 Q/F2 13
/Times-Bold@0 SF(Pr)5.5 E -.13(ov)-.234 G(iding Congestion Contr).13 E
(ol Belo)-.234 E 3.25(wU)-.13 G(DP)-3.25 E F0(Instead of pro)100.8 339.2
Q(viding congestion control abo)-.165 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H(DP).165 E
2.75(,as)-1.221 G(econd possibility w)-2.75 E(ould be to)-.11 E(pro)
100.8 352.2 Q
(vide congestion control for unreliable applications at a layer belo)
-.165 E 2.75(wU)-.275 G(DP)-2.75 E 2.75(,w)-1.221 G(ith)-2.75 E
(applications using UDP as their transport protocol.)100.8 365.2 Q(Gi)
5.5 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(nt).165 G(hat UDP does not itself pro)-2.75
E(vide)-.165 E(sequence numbers or congestion feedback, there are tw)
100.8 378.2 Q 2.75(op)-.11 G(ossible forms for this congestion)-2.75 E
(feedback:)100.8 391.2 Q 7.15<8328>100.8 407.8 S
(1\) Feedback at the application: The application abo)-7.15 E .33 -.165
(ve U)-.165 H(DP could pro).165 E(vide sequence)-.165 E
(numbers and feedback to the sender)111.8 420.8 Q 2.75(,w)-.44 G(hich w)
-2.75 E(ould then communicate loss information to)-.11 E
(the congestion control mechanism.)111.8 433.8 Q
(This is the approach currently standardized by the)5.5 E
(Congestion Manager \(CM\) [RFC 3124].)111.8 446.8 Q 7.15<8328>100.8
463.4 S(2\) Feedback at the layer belo)-7.15 E 2.75(wU)-.275 G
(DP: The application could use UDP)-2.75 E 2.75(,a)-1.221 G
(nd a protocol)-2.75 E
(could be implemented using a shim header between IP and UDP to pro)
111.8 476.4 Q(vide sequence)-.165 E(number information for data pack)
111.8 489.4 Q(ets and return feedback to the data sender)-.11 E 5.5(.T)
-.605 G(he)-5.5 E
(original proposal for the Congestion Manager [Bala99] suggested pro)
111.8 502.4 Q(viding this layer)-.165 E
(for applications that did not ha)111.8 515.4 Q .33 -.165(ve t)-.22 H
(heir o).165 E(wn feedback about dropped pack)-.275 E(ets.)-.11 E 1.76
-.88(We d)100.8 532 T(iscuss these tw).88 E 2.75(oc)-.11 G
(ases separately belo)-2.75 E -.715(w.)-.275 G F1 2.75(3.2.1. Case)72
558 R(1: Congestion F)2.75 E(eedback at the A)-.275 E(pplication)-.275 E
F0(In this case, the application pro)100.8 574.6 Q
(vides sequence numbers and congestion feedback abo)-.165 E -.165(ve)
-.165 G(UDP)100.8 587.6 Q 2.75(,b)-1.221 G
(ut communicates that feedback to a congestion manager belo)-2.97 E 2.75
(wU)-.275 G(DP)-2.75 E 2.75(,w)-1.221 G(hich)-2.75 E(re)100.8 600.6 Q
(gulates when pack)-.165 E(ets can be sent.)-.11 E(This approach suf)5.5
E(fers from most of the problems)-.275 E(described in Section 3.1, name\
ly forcing the application designer to rein)100.8 613.6 Q -.165(ve)-.44
G(nt the wheel).165 E(each time for pack)100.8 626.6 Q
(et formats and parameter ne)-.11 E
(gotiation, and problems with ECN usage,)-.165 E(\214re)100.8 639.6 Q
-.11(wa)-.275 G(lls and e).11 E -.275(va)-.275 G(sion.).275 E(It w)100.8
656.2 Q(ould a)-.11 E -.22(vo)-.22 G
(id the application writer needing to implement the control part of the)
.22 E(congestion control mechanism, b)100.8 669.2 Q(ut it is unclear ho)
-.22 E 2.75(we)-.275 G(asily multiple congestion control)-2.75 E
(algorithms \(such as recei)100.8 682.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G -.22(r-).165
G(based TFRC\) can be supported, gi).22 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(nt).165
G(hat the form of)-2.75 E(congestion feedback usually needs to be close\
ly coupled to the congestion control)100.8 695.2 Q
(algorithm being used.)100.8 708.2 Q
(Thus, this design limits the choice of congestion control)5.5 E
(mechanisms a)100.8 721.2 Q -.275(va)-.22 G
(ilable to applications while simultaneously b).275 E
(urdening the applications with)-.22 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E
(y/K)-.165 E 227.51(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(3.2.1. [P)2.75 F(age 9])
-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 10 10
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E
(implementations of congestion feedback.)100.8 85 Q/F1 11/Times-Bold@0
SF 2.75(3.2.2. Case)72 111 R(2: Congestion F)2.75 E(eedback at a Lay)
-.275 E(er belo)-.11 E 2.75(wU)-.11 G(DP)-2.75 E F0(Pro)100.8 127.6 Q
(viding feedback at a layer belo)-.165 E 2.75(wU)-.275 G(DP w)-2.75 E
(ould require an additional pack)-.11 E(et header belo)-.11 E(w)-.275 E
(UDP to carry sequence numbers in addition to the eight-byte header for\
 UDP itself.)100.8 140.6 Q(Unless)5.5 E
(this header were an IP option \(which is lik)100.8 153.6 Q
(ely to cause problems for man)-.11 E 2.75(yI)-.165 G(Pv4 routers\))
-2.75 E(then its presence w)100.8 166.6 Q
(ould need to be indicated using a dif)-.11 E(ferent IP protocol v)-.275
E(alue from UDP)-.275 E(.)-1.221 E(Thus, the pack)100.8 179.6 Q(ets w)
-.11 E(ould no longer look lik)-.11 E 2.75(eU)-.11 G
(DP on the wire, and the modi\214ed protocol)-2.75 E -.11(wo)100.8 192.6
S(uld f).11 E(ace deplo)-.11 E
(yment challenges similar to those of an entirely ne)-.11 E 2.75(wp)
-.275 G(rotocol.)-2.75 E 1.76 -.88(To u)100.8 209.2 T
(se congestion feedback at a layer belo).88 E 2.75(wU)-.275 G
(DP most ef)-2.75 E(fecti)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G(ly).165 E 2.75(,t)
-.715 G(he semantics of the)-2.75 E(UDP sock)100.8 222.2 Q
(et API \(Application Programming Interf)-.11 E(ace\) w)-.11 E
(ould also need changing, both to)-.11 E
(support a late decision on what to send, and to pro)100.8 235.2 Q
(vide access to the sequence numbers to)-.165 E -.22(avo)100.8 248.2 S
(id the application needing to duplicate them for its o).22 E
(wn purposes.)-.275 E(Thus, the sock)5.5 E(et API)-.11 E -.11(wo)100.8
261.2 S(uld no longer look lik).11 E 2.75(eU)-.11 G(DP to end hosts.)
-2.75 E(This w)5.5 E(ould ef)-.11 E(fecti)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G
(ly be a ne).165 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G(ransport)-2.75 E(protocol.)100.8
274.2 Q(Gi)100.8 290.8 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(nt).165 G
(hese complications, it seems cleaner to actually design a ne)-2.75 E
2.75(wt)-.275 G(ransport protocol,)-2.75 E(which also allo)100.8 303.8 Q
(ws us to address the issues of \214re)-.275 E -.11(wa)-.275 G(ll tra)
.11 E -.165(ve)-.22 G(rsal, \215o).165 E 2.75(ws)-.275 G
(etup, and parameter)-2.75 E(ne)100.8 316.8 Q 2.75(gotiation. W)-.165 F
2.75(en)-.88 G(ote that an)-2.75 E 2.75(yn)-.165 G .55 -.275(ew t)-2.75
H(ransport protocol could also use a Congestion Manager).275 E
(approach to share congestion state between \215o)100.8 329.8 Q
(ws using the same congestion control)-.275 E
(algorithm, if this were deemed to be desirable.)100.8 342.8 Q F1(3.3.)
72 368.8 Q/F2 13/Times-Bold@0 SF(Pr)5.5 E -.13(ov)-.234 G
(iding Congestion Contr).13 E(ol at the T)-.234 E(ransport Lay)-.962 E
(er)-.13 E F0(The concerns from the discussions abo)100.8 385.4 Q .33
-.165(ve h)-.165 H -2.475 -.22(av e).165 H(con)2.97 E
(vinced us that the best w)-.44 E(ay to pro)-.11 E(vide)-.165 E
(congestion control to applications that currently use UDP is to pro)
100.8 398.4 Q(vide congestion control)-.165 E(at the transport layer)
100.8 411.4 Q 2.75(,i)-.44 G 2.75(nat)-2.75 G
(ransport protocol used as an alternati)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H
2.75(oU).165 G(DP)-2.75 E 5.5(.O)-1.221 G(ne adv)-5.5 E(antage)-.275 E
(of pro)100.8 424.4 Q(viding end-to-end congestion control in an unreli\
able transport protocol is that it)-.165 E(could be used easily by a wi\
de range of the applications that currently use UDP)100.8 437.4 Q 2.75
(,w)-1.221 G(ith)-2.75 E(minimal changes to the application itself.)
100.8 450.4 Q(The application itself w)5.5 E(ould not ha)-.11 E .33
-.165(ve t)-.22 H 2.75(op).165 G(ro)-2.75 E(vide)-.165 E
(the congestion control mechanism, or e)100.8 463.4 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G
2.75(nt).165 G(he feedback from the data recei)-2.75 E -.165(ve)-.275 G
2.75(rt).165 G 2.75(ot)-2.75 G(he data)-2.75 E
(sender about lost or mark)100.8 476.4 Q(ed pack)-.11 E(ets.)-.11 E(The\
 question then arises of whether to adapt TCP for use by unreliable app\
lications, to use)100.8 493 Q(an unreliable v)100.8 506 Q
(ariant of SCTP or a v)-.275 E(ersion of R)-.165 E(TP with b)-.66 E
(uilt-in congestion control, or to)-.22 E(design a ne)100.8 519 Q 2.75
(wt)-.275 G(ransport protocol.)-2.75 E(As we ar)100.8 535.6 Q(gue belo)
-.198 E 1.43 -.715(w, t)-.275 H(he desire for minimal o).715 E -.165(ve)
-.165 G(rhead results in the design decision to use a).165 E
(transport protocol containing only the minimal necessary functionality)
100.8 548.6 Q 2.75(,a)-.715 G(nd to lea)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve o)-.22 H
(ther).165 E(functionality such as reliability)100.8 561.6 Q 2.75(,s)
-.715 G(emi-reliability)-2.75 E 2.75(,o)-.715 G 2.75(rF)-2.75 G(orw)
-2.915 E(ard Error Correction \(FEC\) to be)-.11 E(layered on top.)100.8
574.6 Q F1 2.75(3.3.1. Modifying)72 600.6 R(TCP?)2.75 E F0
(One alternati)100.8 617.2 Q .33 -.165(ve m)-.275 H
(ight be to create an unreliable v).165 E(ariant of TCP)-.275 E 2.75(,w)
-1.221 G(ith the reliability layered)-2.75 E
(on top for applications desiring reliable deli)100.8 630.2 Q -.165(ve)
-.275 G(ry).165 E 5.5(.H)-.715 G -.275(ow)-5.5 G -2.365 -.275(ev e).275
H .88 -.44(r, o).275 H(ur requirement is not simply).44 E
(for TCP minus the in-order reliable deli)100.8 643.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G
(ry).165 E 2.75(,b)-.715 G(ut also for the application to be able to)
-2.97 E(choose congestion control algorithms.)100.8 656.2 Q(TCP')5.5 E
2.75(sf)-.605 G(eedback mechanism w)-2.75 E(orks well for TCP-)-.11 E
(lik)100.8 669.2 Q 2.75(ec)-.11 G(ongestion control, b)-2.75 E
(ut is inappropriate \(or at the v)-.22 E(ery least, inef)-.165 E
(\214cient\) for TFRC.)-.275 E(In)5.5 E
(addition, TCP sequence numbers are in bytes, not datagrams.)100.8 682.2
Q(This w)5.5 E(ould complicate both)-.11 E(congestion feedback and an)
100.8 695.2 Q 2.75(ya)-.165 G(ttempt to allo)-2.75 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(he application to decide, at transmission)-2.75 E
(time, what information should go into a pack)100.8 708.2 Q 2.75
(et. Finally)-.11 F 2.75(,t)-.715 G(here is the issue of whether a)-2.75
E(modi\214ed TCP w)100.8 721.2 Q(ould require a ne)-.11 E 2.75(wI)-.275
G 2.75(Pp)-2.75 G(rotocol number as well; a signi\214cantly modi\214ed)
-2.75 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 222.01(ohler Section)
-.385 F 2.75(3.3.1. [P)2.75 F(age 10])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 11 11
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E
(TCP using the same IP protocol number could ha)100.8 85 Q .33 -.165
(ve u)-.22 H(nw).165 E(anted interactions with some of the)-.11 E
(middlebox)100.8 98 Q(es already deplo)-.165 E(yed in the netw)-.11 E
(ork.)-.11 E(It seems best simply to lea)100.8 114.6 Q .33 -.165(ve T)
-.22 H(CP as it is, and to create a ne).165 E 2.75(wc)-.275 G
(ongestion control protocol)-2.75 E(for unreliable transfer)100.8 127.6
Q 5.5(.T)-.605 G(his is especially true since an)-5.5 E 2.75(yc)-.165 G
(hange to TCP)-2.75 E 2.75(,n)-1.221 G 2.75(om)-2.75 G(atter ho)-2.75 E
(w)-.275 E(small, tak)100.8 140.6 Q
(es an inordinate amount of time to standardize and deplo)-.11 E 1.43
-.715(y, g)-.11 H -2.365 -.275(iv e).715 H 2.75(nT).275 G(CP')-2.75 E(s)
-.605 E(importance in the current Internet and the historical dif)100.8
153.6 Q(\214culty of getting TCP)-.275 E(implementations right.)100.8
166.6 Q/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF 2.75(3.3.2. Unr)72 192.6 R(eliable V)-.198
E(ariants of SCTP?)-1.012 E F0(SCTP)100.8 209.2 Q 2.75(,t)-1.221 G
(he Stream Control T)-2.75 E(ransmission Protocol [RFC 2960], w)-.385 E
(as in part designed to)-.11 E(accommodate multiple streams within a si\
ngle end-to-end connection, modifying TCP')100.8 222.2 Q(s)-.605 E
(semantics of reliable, in-order deli)100.8 235.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G
(ry to allo).165 E 2.75(wo)-.275 G(ut-of-order deli)-2.75 E -.165(ve)
-.275 G(ry).165 E 5.5(.H)-.715 G -.275(ow)-5.5 G -2.365 -.275(ev e).275
H .88 -.44(r, e).275 H(xplicit).275 E(support for multiple streams o)
100.8 248.2 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(ras).165 G(ingle \215o)-2.75 E 2.75
(wa)-.275 G 2.75(tt)-2.75 G(he transport layer is not necessary for an)
-2.75 E(unreliable transport protocol such as DCCP)100.8 261.2 Q 2.75
(,w)-1.221 G(hich of necessity allo)-2.75 E(ws out-of-order)-.275 E
(deli)100.8 274.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G(ry).165 E 5.5(.B)-.715 G(ecause an\
 unreliable transport does not need streams support, applications)-5.5 E
(should not ha)100.8 287.2 Q .33 -.165(ve t)-.22 H 2.75(op).165 G
(ay the penalties in terms of increased header size that accompan)-2.75
E 2.75(yt)-.165 G(he)-2.75 E(use of streams in SCTP)100.8 300.2 Q(.)
-1.221 E(The basic underlying structure of the SCTP pack)100.8 316.8 Q
(et, of a common SCTP header follo)-.11 E(wed by)-.275 E
(chunks for data, SA)100.8 329.8 Q(CK information, and so on, is moti)
-.44 E -.275(va)-.275 G(ted by SCTP').275 E 2.75(sg)-.605 G(oal of)-2.75
E(accommodating multiple streams.)100.8 342.8 Q(Ho)5.5 E(we)-.275 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, t).165 H
(his use of chunks comes at the cost of an).44 E
(increased header size for pack)100.8 355.8 Q
(ets, as each chunk must be aligned on 32-bit boundaries, and)-.11 E
(therefore requires a \214x)100.8 368.8 Q(ed-size 4-byte chunk header)
-.165 E 5.5(.F)-.605 G(or e)-5.665 E(xample, for a connection using)
-.165 E(ECN, SCTP includes separate control chunks for the Explicit Con\
gestion Noti\214cation Echo)100.8 381.8 Q(and Congestion W)100.8 394.8 Q
(indo)-.44 E 2.75(wR)-.275 G
(educed functions, with the ECNE and CWR chunks each)-2.75 E
(requiring 8 bytes.)100.8 407.8 Q(As another e)5.5 E
(xample, the common header includes a 4-byte v)-.165 E(eri\214cation)
-.165 E(tag to v)100.8 420.8 Q(alidate the sender)-.275 E(.)-.605 E
(As a second concern, SCTP as currently speci\214ed uses TCP-lik)100.8
437.4 Q 2.75(ec)-.11 G(ongestion control, and)-2.75 E(does not pro)100.8
450.4 Q(vide support for alternati)-.165 E .33 -.165(ve c)-.275 H
(ongestion control algorithms such as TFRC that).165 E -.11(wo)100.8
463.4 S(uld be more attracti).11 E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75(os).165 G
(ome of the applications currently using UDP \215o)-2.75 E 2.75
(ws. Thus,)-.275 F(the)2.75 E(current v)100.8 476.4 Q(ersion of SCTP w)
-.165 E(ould not meet the requirements for a choice between forms of)
-.11 E(end-to-end congestion control.)100.8 489.4 Q(Finally)100.8 506 Q
2.75(,t)-.715 G(he SCTP P)-2.75 E(artial Reliability e)-.165 E
(xtension [RFC 3758] allo)-.165 E(ws a sender to selecti)-.275 E -.165
(ve)-.275 G(ly).165 E
(abandon outstanding messages, which ceases retransmissions and allo)
100.8 519 Q(ws the recei)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(rt).165 G(o)-2.75
E(deli)100.8 532 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(ra).165 G .33 -.165(ny q)-2.75
H(ueued messages on the af).165 E(fected streams.)-.275 E
(This service model, although well-)5.5 E
(suited for some applications, dif)100.8 545 Q(fers from, and pro)-.275
E(vides the application some)-.165 E(what less)-.275 E<8d65>100.8 558 Q
(xibility than, UDP')-.165 E 2.75(sf)-.605 G(ully unreliable service.)
-2.75 E(One could suggest adding support for alternati)100.8 574.6 Q .33
-.165(ve c)-.275 H(ongestion control mechanisms as an).165 E
(option to SCTP)100.8 587.6 Q 2.75(,a)-1.221 G
(nd adding a fully-unreliable v)-2.75 E
(ariant that does not include the mechanisms)-.275 E
(for multiple streams.)100.8 600.6 Q 1.76 -.88(We w)5.5 H(ould ar).77 E
(gue ag)-.198 E(ainst this.)-.055 E
(SCTP is well-suited for applications)5.5 E(that desire limited retrans\
mission with multi-stream or multi-homing support.)100.8 613.6 Q(Adding)
5.5 E(support for fully-unreliable v)100.8 626.6 Q
(ariants, multiple congestion control pro\214les, and reduced)-.275 E
(single-stream headers w)100.8 639.6 Q
(ould risk introducing unforeseen interactions and mak)-.11 E 2.75(ef)
-.11 G(urther)-2.75 E(modi\214cations e)100.8 652.6 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G
2.75(rm).165 G(ore dif)-2.75 E 2.75(\214cult. W)-.275 F 2.75(eh)-.88 G
-2.475 -.22(av e)-2.75 H(chosen instead to implement a minimal)2.97 E
(protocol, designed for fully-unreliable datagram service, that pro)
100.8 665.6 Q(vides only end-to-end)-.165 E(congestion control and an)
100.8 678.6 Q 2.75(yo)-.165 G(ther mechanisms that cannot be pro)-2.75 E
(vided in a higher layer)-.165 E(.)-.605 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E
(y/K)-.165 E 222.01(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(3.3.2. [P)2.75 F(age 11])
-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 12 12
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF 2.75
(3.3.3. Modifying)72 85 R -.44(RT)2.75 G(P?).44 E F0(Se)100.8 101.6 Q
-.165(ve)-.275 G(ral of our tar).165 E(get applications currently use R)
-.198 E(TP layered abo)-.66 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H
(DP to transfer their).165 E 2.75(data. Wh)100.8 114.6 R 2.75(yn)-.055 G
(ot modify R)-2.75 E(TP to pro)-.66 E
(vide end-to-end congestion control?)-.165 E(When R)100.8 131.2 Q(TP li)
-.66 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(sa).165 G(bo)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve U)-.165 H
(DP).165 E 2.75(,m)-1.221 G
(odifying it to support congestion control might encounter)-2.75 E
(some of the problems described in Section 3.1.)100.8 144.2 Q
(In particular)5.5 E 2.75(,u)-.44 G(ser)-2.75 E(-le)-.22 E -.165(ve)
-.275 G 2.75(lR).165 G(TP)-3.41 E(implementations w)100.8 157.2 Q
(ould w)-.11 E(ant access to ECN bits in UDP datagrams.)-.11 E
(It might be dif)5.5 E(\214cult or)-.275 E(undesirable to allo)100.8
170.2 Q 2.75(wt)-.275 G(hat access for R)-2.75 E(TP)-.66 E 2.75(,b)
-1.221 G(ut not for other user)-2.97 E(-le)-.22 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75
(lp).165 G(rograms.)-2.75 E -.275(Ke)100.8 186.8 S
(rnel implementations of R).275 E(TP w)-.66 E(ould not suf)-.11 E
(fer from this problem. In the end, the)-.275 E(ar)100.8 199.8 Q
(gument ag)-.198 E(ainst modifying R)-.055 E(TP is the same as that ag)
-.66 E(ainst modifying SCTP: Some)-.055 E(applications, such as the e)
100.8 212.8 Q(xport of \215o)-.165 E 2.75(wi)-.275 G
(nformation from routers, need congestion control)-2.75 E -.22(bu)100.8
225.8 S 2.75(td).22 G(on')-2.75 E 2.75(tn)-.198 G(eed much of R)-2.75 E
(TP')-.66 E 2.75(sf)-.605 G(unctionality)-2.75 E 5.5(.F)-.715 G
(rom these applications' point of vie)-5.5 E 1.43 -.715(w, R)-.275 H(TP)
.055 E -.11(wo)100.8 238.8 S(uld induce unnecessary o).11 E -.165(ve)
-.165 G 2.75(rhead. Ag).165 F(ain, we w)-.055 E(ould ar)-.11 E
(gue for a clean and minimal)-.198 E
(protocol focused on end-to-end congestion control.)100.8 251.8 Q -.66
(RT)100.8 268.4 S 2.75(Pw).66 G(ould commonly be used as a layer abo)
-2.86 E .33 -.165(ve a)-.165 H .33 -.165(ny n).165 H .55 -.275(ew t).165
H(ransport protocol, ho).275 E(we)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 3.96 -.605
(r. T).165 H(he).605 E(design of that ne)100.8 281.4 Q 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(ransport protocol should tak)-2.75 E 2.75(et)-.11 G
(his into account, either by a)-2.75 E -.22(vo)-.22 G(iding).22 E
(undue duplication of information a)100.8 294.4 Q -.275(va)-.22 G
(ilable in the R).275 E(TP header)-.66 E 2.75(,o)-.44 G 2.75(rb)-2.75 G
2.75(ys)-2.75 G(uggesting)-2.75 E(modi\214cations to R)100.8 307.4 Q(TP)
-.66 E 2.75(,s)-1.221 G(uch as a reduced R)-2.75 E(TP header that remo)
-.66 E -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(sa).165 G .33 -.165(ny \214)-2.75 H
(elds redundant with).165 E(the ne)100.8 320.4 Q 2.75(wp)-.275 G
(rotocol')-2.75 E 2.75(sh)-.605 G(eaders.)-2.75 E F1 2.75
(3.3.4. Designing)72 346.4 R 2.75(aN)2.75 G(ew T)-2.75 E(ransport Pr)
-.814 E(otocol)-.198 E F0(In the \214rst half of this document we ha)
100.8 363 Q .33 -.165(ve a)-.22 H -.198(rg).165 G(ued for pro).198 E
(viding congestion control at the)-.165 E
(transport layer as an alternati)100.8 376 Q .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75
(oU).165 G(DP)-2.75 E 2.75(,i)-1.221 G
(nstead of relying on congestion control supplied)-2.75 E(only abo)100.8
389 Q .33 -.165(ve o)-.165 H 2.75(rb).165 G(elo)-2.75 E 2.75(wU)-.275 G
(DP)-2.75 E 5.5(.I)-1.221 G 2.75(nt)-5.5 G(his section, we ha)-2.75 E
.33 -.165(ve ex)-.22 H(amined the possibilities of modifying).165 E
(SCTP)100.8 402 Q 2.75(,m)-1.221 G(odifying TCP)-2.75 E 2.75(,a)-1.221 G
(nd designing a ne)-2.75 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G(ransport protocol.)-2.75 E
(In lar)5.5 E(ge part because of the)-.198 E(requirement for unreliable\
 transport, and for accommodating TFRC as well as TCP-lik)100.8 415 Q(e)
-.11 E(congestion control, we ha)100.8 428 Q .33 -.165(ve c)-.22 H
(oncluded that modi\214cations of SCTP or TCP are not the best).165 E
(answer)100.8 441 Q 2.75(,a)-.44 G(nd that a ne)-2.75 E 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(ransport protocol is needed.)-2.75 E(Thus, we ha)5.5 E .33 -.165(ve a)
-.22 H -.198(rg).165 G(ued for the need for).198 E 2.75(an)100.8 454 S
.55 -.275(ew t)-2.75 H(ransport protocol that of).275 E
(fers unreliable deli)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G
(ry; accommodates TFRC as well as).165 E(TCP-lik)100.8 467 Q 2.75(ec)
-.11 G
(ongestion control; accommodates the use of ECN; and requires minimal)
-2.75 E -.165(ove)100.8 480 S(rhead in pack).165 E
(et size and in the state and CPU processing required at the data recei)
-.11 E -.165(ve)-.275 G -.605(r.).165 G F1(4.)72 506 Q/F2 14
/Times-Bold@0 SF(Selling Congestion Contr)5.5 E(ol to Reluctant A)-.252
E(pplications)-.35 E F0(The goal of this w)100.8 522.6 Q(ork is to pro)
-.11 E(vide general congestion control mechanisms that will)-.165 E
(actually be used by man)100.8 535.6 Q 2.75(yo)-.165 G 2.75(ft)-2.75 G
(he applications that currently use UDP)-2.75 E 5.5(.T)-1.221 G
(his may include)-5.5 E(applications that are perfectly happ)100.8 548.6
Q 2.75(yw)-.11 G(ithout end-to-end congestion control.)-2.75 E(Se)5.5 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G(ral of our).165 E(design requirements follo)100.8 561.6
Q 2.75(wf)-.275 G(rom a desire to design and deplo)-2.75 E 2.75(yac)-.11
G(ongestion-controlled)-2.75 E(protocol that is actually attracti)100.8
574.6 Q .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H 2.75(ot).165 G
(hese "reluctant" applications.)-2.75 E(These design)5.5 E(requirements\
 include the use of Explicit Congestion Noti\214cation \(ECN\) and the \
ECN)100.8 587.6 Q(Nonce, which both pro)100.8 600.6 Q(vide positi)-.165
E .33 -.165(ve b)-.275 H
(ene\214t to the application itself; the choice between).165 E(dif)100.8
613.6 Q(ferent forms of congestion control; and moderate o)-.275 E -.165
(ve)-.165 G(rhead in the size of the pack).165 E(et)-.11 E(header)100.8
626.6 Q(.)-.605 E(There will al)100.8 643.2 Q -.11(wa)-.11 G(ys be a fe)
.11 E 2.75<778d>-.275 G -.275(ow)-2.75 G 2.75(st).275 G
(hat are resistant to the use of end-to-end congestion)-2.75 E
(control, preferring an en)100.8 656.2 Q
(vironment where end-to-end congestion control is used by)-.44 E -2.365
-.275(ev e)100.8 669.2 T(ryone else, b).275 E(ut not by themselv)-.22 E
2.75(es. There)-.165 F(has been substantial agreement [RFC 2309,)2.75 E
(FF99] that in order to maintain the continued use of end-to-end conges\
tion control, router)100.8 682.2 Q(mechanisms are needed to detect and \
penalize uncontrolled high-bandwidth \215o)100.8 695.2 Q(ws in times)
-.275 E
(of high congestion; these router mechanisms are colloquially kno)100.8
708.2 Q(wn as "penalty box)-.275 E(es".)-.165 E(Ho)100.8 721.2 Q(we)
-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, b).165 H
(efore undertaking a concerted ef).44 E(fort to)-.275 E -.11(wa)-.275 G
(rds the deplo).11 E(yment of penalty box)-.11 E(es in)-.165 E(Flo)72
769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 238.51(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75
(4. [P)2.75 F(age 12])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 13 13
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E
(the Internet, it seems reasonable, and more ef)100.8 85 Q(fecti)-.275 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(,t).165 G 2.75<6f8c>-2.75 G(rst mak)-2.75 E 2.75
(eac)-.11 G(oncerted ef)-2.75 E(fort to)-.275 E(mak)100.8 98 Q 2.75(ee)
-.11 G(nd-to-end congestion control easily a)-2.75 E -.275(va)-.22 G
(ilable to applications currently using UDP).275 E(.)-1.221 E/F1 11
/Times-Bold@0 SF(5.)72 124 Q/F2 14/Times-Bold@0 SF
(Additional Design Considerations)5.5 E F0(This section mentions some a\
dditional design considerations that should be considered in)100.8 140.6
Q(designing a ne)100.8 153.6 Q 2.75(wt)-.275 G(ransport protocol.)-2.75
E 7.15<834d>100.8 170.2 S(obility: Mechanisms for multihoming and mobil\
ity are one area of additional)-7.15 E
(functionality that cannot necessarily be layered cleanly and ef)111.8
183.2 Q(fecti)-.275 E -.165(ve)-.275 G(ly on top of a).165 E
(transport protocol.)111.8 196.2 Q
(Thus, one outstanding design decision with an)5.5 E 2.75(yn)-.165 G .55
-.275(ew t)-2.75 H(ransport).275 E(protocol concerns whether to incorpo\
rate mechanisms for multihoming and mobility into)111.8 209.2 Q
(the protocol itself.)111.8 222.2 Q(The current v)5.5 E
(ersion of DCCP includes no multihoming or mobility)-.165 E(support.)
111.8 235.2 Q 7.15<8344>100.8 251.8 S(efense ag)-7.15 E
(ainst DoS attacks and spoo\214ng: A reliable handshak)-.055 E 2.75(ef)
-.11 G(or connection setup)-2.75 E(and teardo)111.8 264.8 Q(wn of)-.275
E(fers protection ag)-.275 E(ainst DoS and spoo\214ng attacks.)-.055 E
(Mechanisms allo)5.5 E(wing)-.275 E 2.75(as)111.8 277.8 S(erv)-2.75 E
(er to a)-.165 E -.22(vo)-.22 G(id holding an).22 E 2.75(ys)-.165 G
(tate for unackno)-2.75 E(wledged connection attempts or already-)-.275
E(\214nished connections of)111.8 290.8 Q(fer additional protection ag)
-.275 E(ainst DoS attacks.)-.055 E(Thus, in designing)5.5 E 2.75(an)
111.8 303.8 S .55 -.275(ew t)-2.75 H(ransport protocol, e).275 E -.165
(ve)-.275 G 2.75(no).165 G(ne designed to pro)-2.75 E
(vide minimal functionality)-.165 E 2.75(,t)-.715 G(he)-2.75 E
(requirements for pro)111.8 316.8 Q(viding defense ag)-.165 E
(ainst DoS attacks and spoo\214ng need to be)-.055 E(considered.)111.8
329.8 Q 7.15<8349>100.8 346.4 S(nteroperation with R)-7.15 E
(TP: As Section 3.3.3 describes, attention should be paid to an)-.66 E
(y)-.165 E(necessary or desirable changes in R)111.8 359.4 Q
(TP when it is used o)-.66 E -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rt).165 G(he ne)-2.75
E 2.75(wp)-.275 G(rotocol, such as)-2.75 E(reduced R)111.8 372.4 Q
(TP headers.)-.66 E 7.15<8341>100.8 389 S(PI: Some functionality requir\
ed by the protocol, or useful for applications using the)-7.15 E
(protocol, may require the de\214nition of ne)111.8 402 Q 2.75(wA)-.275
G(PI mechanisms.)-2.75 E(Examples include)5.5 E(allo)111.8 415 Q
(wing applications to decide what information to put in a pack)-.275 E
(et at transmission time,)-.11 E(and pro)111.8 428 Q
(viding applications with some information about pack)-.165 E
(et sequence numbers.)-.11 E 7.15<8349>100.8 444.6 S(nteractions with N)
-7.15 E -1.221(AT)-.385 G 2.75(sa)1.221 G(nd Fire)-2.75 E -.11(wa)-.275
G(lls: N).11 E -1.221(AT)-.385 G 2.75(sa)1.221 G(nd \214re)-2.75 E -.11
(wa)-.275 G(lls don').11 E 2.75(ti)-.198 G(nteract well with UDP)-2.75 E
(,)-1.221 E(with its lack of e)111.8 457.6 Q(xplicit \215o)-.165 E 2.75
(ws)-.275 G(etup and teardo)-2.75 E
(wn and, in practice, the lack of well-kno)-.275 E(wn)-.275 E
(ports for man)111.8 470.6 Q 2.75(yU)-.165 G(DP applications.)-2.75 E
(Some of these issues are application-speci\214c; others)5.5 E
(should be addressed by the transport protocol itself.)111.8 483.6 Q
7.15<8343>100.8 500.2 S(onsider general e)-7.15 E
(xperiences with unicast transport: A Requirements for Unicast)-.165 E
-.385(Tr)111.8 513.2 S(ansport/Sessions \(R).385 E(UTS\) BOF w)-.44 E
(as held at the IETF meeting in December)-.11 E 2.75(,1)-.44 G
(998, with)-2.75 E(the goal of understanding the requirements of applic\
ations whose needs were not met by)111.8 526.2 Q(TCP [R)111.8 539.2 Q
2.75(UTS]. Not)-.44 F(all of those unmet needs are rele)2.75 E -.275(va)
-.275 G(nt to or appropriate for a unicast,).275 E
(congestion-controlled, unreliable \215o)111.8 552.2 Q 2.75(wo)-.275 G
2.75(fd)-2.75 G(atagrams designed for long-li)-2.75 E -.165(ve)-.275 G
2.75(dt).165 G(ransfers.)-2.75 E(Some are, ho)111.8 565.2 Q(we)-.275 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G .88 -.44(r, a).165 H(nd an).44 E 2.75(yn)-.165 G .55
-.275(ew p)-2.75 H(rotocol should address those needs, and other).275 E
(requirements deri)111.8 578.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(df).165 G
(rom the community')-2.75 E 2.75(se)-.605 G(xperience. W)-2.915 E 2.75
(eb)-.88 G(elie)-2.75 E .33 -.165(ve t)-.275 H(hat this document).165 E
(addresses the requirements rele)111.8 591.2 Q -.275(va)-.275 G
(nt to our problem area that were brought up at the).275 E -.44(RU)111.8
604.2 S(TS BOF).44 E(.)-.88 E F1(6.)72 630.2 Q F2 -1.036(Tr)5.5 G
(ansport Requir)1.036 E(ements of Request/Response A)-.252 E
(pplications)-.35 E F0(Up until no)100.8 646.8 Q 1.43 -.715(w, t)-.275 H
(his document has discussed the transport and congestion control).715 E
(requirements of applications that generate long-li)100.8 659.8 Q -.165
(ve)-.275 G(d, lar).165 E(ge \215o)-.198 E(ws of unreliable datagrams.)
-.275 E(This section discusses brie\215y the transport needs of another\
 class of applications, those of)100.8 672.8 Q(request/response transfe\
rs where the response might be a small number of pack)100.8 685.8 Q
(ets, with)-.11 E(preferences that include both reliable deli)100.8
698.8 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G(ry and a minimum of state maintained at the)
.165 E 2.75(ends. The)100.8 711.8 R(reliable deli)2.75 E -.165(ve)-.275
G(ry could be accomplished, for e).165 E(xample, by ha)-.165 E
(ving the recei)-.22 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(rr).165 G(e-)-2.75 E
(query when one or more of the pack)100.8 724.8 Q
(ets in the response is lost.)-.11 E(This is a class of)5.5 E(Flo)72 769
Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 238.51(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(6. [P)
2.75 F(age 13])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 14 14
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E
(applications whose needs are not well-met by either UDP or by TCP)100.8
85 Q(.)-1.221 E(Although there is a le)100.8 101.6 Q
(gitimate need for a transport protocol for such short-li)-.165 E -.165
(ve)-.275 G 2.75(dr).165 G(eliable)-2.75 E<8d6f>100.8 114.6 Q
(ws of such request/response applications, we belie)-.275 E .33 -.165
(ve t)-.275 H(hat the o).165 E -.165(ve)-.165 G(rlap with the).165 E
(requirements of DCCP is almost non-e)100.8 127.6 Q
(xistent, and that DCCP should not be designed to)-.165 E
(meet the needs of these request/response applications.)100.8 140.6 Q
(Areas of non-compatible)5.5 E(requirements include the follo)100.8
153.6 Q(wing:)-.275 E 7.15<8352>100.8 170.2 S
(eliability: DCCP applications don')-7.15 E 2.75(tn)-.198 G
(eed reliability \(and long-li)-2.75 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(da).165 G
(pplications that do)-2.75 E
(require reliability are well-suited to TCP or SCTP\).)111.8 183.2 Q
(In contrast, these short-li)5.5 E -.165(ve)-.275 G(d).165 E(request/re\
sponse applications do require reliability \(possibly client-dri)111.8
196.2 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(nr).165 G(eliability in)-2.75 E
(the form of requesting missing se)111.8 209.2 Q
(gments of a response\).)-.165 E 7.15<8343>100.8 225.8 S
(onnection setup and teardo)-7.15 E(wn: Because DCCP is aimed at \215o)
-.275 E(ws whose duration is)-.275 E(often unkno)111.8 238.8 Q
(wn in adv)-.275 E(ance, it addresses interactions with N)-.275 E -1.221
(AT)-.385 G 2.75(sa)1.221 G(nd \214re)-2.75 E -.11(wa)-.275 G(lls by ha)
.11 E(ving)-.22 E -.165(ex)111.8 251.8 S(plicit handshak).165 E
(es for setup and teardo)-.11 E 2.75(wn. In)-.275 F
(contrast, the short-li)2.75 E -.165(ve)-.275 G 2.75(dr).165 G
(equest/response)-2.75 E(applications kno)111.8 264.8 Q 2.75(wt)-.275 G
(he transfer length in adv)-2.75 E(ance, b)-.275 E
(ut cannot tolerate the additional delay)-.22 E(of a handshak)111.8
277.8 Q 2.75(ef)-.11 G(or \215o)-2.75 E 2.75(ws)-.275 G 2.75
(et-up. Thus,)-2.75 F(mechanisms for interacting with N)2.75 E -1.221
(AT)-.385 G 2.75(sa)1.221 G(nd)-2.75 E(\214re)111.8 290.8 Q -.11(wa)
-.275 G(lls are lik).11 E(ely to be completely dif)-.11 E
(ferent for the tw)-.275 E 2.75(os)-.11 G(ets of applications.)-2.75 E
7.15<8343>100.8 307.4 S(ongestion-control mechanisms: The styles of con\
gestion control mechanisms and)-7.15 E(ne)111.8 320.4 Q
(gotiations of congestion control features are hea)-.165 E
(vily dependent on the \215o)-.22 E 2.75(wd)-.275 G(uration.)-2.75 E(In\
 addition, the preference of the request/response applications for a st\
ateless serv)111.8 333.4 Q(er)-.165 E
(strongly impacts the congestion control choices.)111.8 346.4 Q
(Thus, DCCP and the short-li)5.5 E -.165(ve)-.275 G(d).165 E
(request/response applications ha)111.8 359.4 Q .33 -.165(ve r)-.22 H
(ather dif).165 E(ferent requirements both for congestion)-.275 E
(control mechanisms and for ne)111.8 372.4 Q(gotiation procedures.)-.165
E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF(7.)72 398.4 Q/F2 14/Times-Bold@0 SF
(Summary of Recommendations)5.5 E F0(Our problem statement has discusse\
d the need for implementing congestion control for)100.8 415 Q
(unreliable \215o)100.8 428 Q 2.75(ws. Additional)-.275 F
(problems concern the need for lo)2.75 E 2.75(wo)-.275 G -.165(ve)-2.915
G(rhead, the problems of).165 E(\214re)100.8 441 Q -.11(wa)-.275 G
(ll tra).11 E -.165(ve)-.22 G
(rsal, and the need for reliable parameter ne).165 E 2.75
(gotiation. Our)-.165 F(consideration of the)2.75 E
(problem statement has resulted in the follo)100.8 454 Q
(wing general recommendations:)-.275 E 7.15<8341>100.8 470.6 S
(unicast transport protocol for unreliable datagrams should be de)-4.4 E
-.165(ve)-.275 G(loped, including).165 E(mandatory)111.8 483.6 Q 2.75
(,b)-.715 G(uilt-in congestion control, e)-2.97 E
(xplicit connection setup and teardo)-.165 E(wn, reliable)-.275 E
(feature ne)111.8 496.6 Q(gotiation, and reliable congestion feedback.)
-.165 E 7.15<8354>100.8 513.2 S(he protocol must pro)-7.15 E
(vide a set of congestion control mechanisms from which the)-.165 E
(application may choose.)111.8 526.2 Q
(These mechanisms should include, at minimum, TCP-lik)5.5 E(e)-.11 E
(congestion control and a more slo)111.8 539.2 Q
(wly-responding congestion control such as TFRC.)-.275 E 7.15<8349>100.8
555.8 S(mportant features of the connection, such as the congestion con\
trol mechanism in use,)-7.15 E(should be reliably ne)111.8 568.8 Q
(gotiated by both endpoints.)-.165 E 7.15<8353>100.8 585.4 S
(upport for ECN should be included.)-7.15 E
(\(Applications could still mak)5.5 E 2.75(et)-.11 G(he decision not to)
-2.75 E(use ECN for a particular session.\))111.8 598.4 Q 7.15<8354>
100.8 615 S(he o)-7.15 E -.165(ve)-.165 G(rhead must be lo).165 E 1.43
-.715(w, i)-.275 H 2.75(nt).715 G(erms of both pack)-2.75 E
(et size and protocol comple)-.11 E(xity)-.165 E(.)-.715 E 7.15<8353>
100.8 631.6 S(ome DoS protection for serv)-7.15 E(ers must be included.)
-.165 E(In particular)5.5 E 2.75(,s)-.44 G(erv)-2.75 E(ers can mak)-.165
E(e)-.11 E(themselv)111.8 644.6 Q
(es resistant to spoofed connection attacks \("SYN \215oods"\).)-.165 E
7.15<8343>100.8 661.2 S(onnection setup and teardo)-7.15 E
(wn must use e)-.275 E(xplicit handshak)-.165 E(es, f)-.11 E
(acilitating transmission)-.11 E(through stateful \214re)111.8 674.2 Q
-.11(wa)-.275 G(lls.).11 E(In 2002, there w)100.8 690.8 Q
(as judged to be a consensus about the need for a ne)-.11 E 2.75(wu)
-.275 G(nicast transport)-2.75 E
(protocol for unreliable datagrams, and the ne)100.8 703.8 Q(xt step w)
-.165 E(as then the consideration of more)-.11 E
(detailed architectural issues.)100.8 716.8 Q(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)
-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 238.51(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(7. [P)2.75 F
(age 14])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 15 15
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF(8.)72
85 Q/F2 14/Times-Bold@0 SF(Security Considerations)5.5 E F0
(There are no security considerations for this document.)100.8 101.6 Q
(The security considerations for)5.5 E
(DCCP are discussed separately in [DCCP].)100.8 114.6 Q F1(9.)72 140.6 Q
F2(IAN)5.5 E 3.5(AC)-.28 G(onsiderations)-3.5 E F0(There are no IAN)
100.8 157.2 Q 2.75(AC)-.385 G(onsiderations for this document.)-2.75 E
F1(10.)72 183.2 Q F2(Ackno)5.5 E(wledgements)-.14 E F0 1.76 -.88(We w)
100.8 199.8 T(ould lik).77 E 2.75(et)-.11 G 2.75(ot)-2.75 G
(hank Spencer Da)-2.75 E(wkins, Jiten Goel, Jef)-.165 E 2.75(fH)-.275 G
(ammond, Lars-Erik Jonsson,)-2.75 E(John Loughne)100.8 212.8 Q 1.43
-.715(y, M)-.165 H(ichael Mealling, and Rik W).715 E
(ade for feedback on earlier v)-.88 E(ersions of this)-.165 E 2.75
(document. W)100.8 225.8 R 2.75(ew)-.88 G(ould also lik)-2.86 E 2.75(et)
-.11 G 2.75(ot)-2.75 G(hank members of the T)-2.75 E(ransport Area W)
-.385 E(orking Group)-.88 E(and of the DCCP W)100.8 238.8 Q
(orking Group for discussions of these issues.)-.88 E F1(11.)72 264.8 Q
F2(Inf)5.5 E(ormati)-.35 E .28 -.14(ve R)-.14 H(efer).14 E(ences)-.252 E
F0([Bala99] H. Balakrishnan, H. Rahul, and S. Seshan.)100.8 281.4 Q
(An Inte)5.5 E(grated Congestion)-.165 E
(Management Architecture for Internet Hosts.)129.6 294.4 Q
(SIGCOMM, Sept. 1999.)5.5 E([CCID 2 PR)100.8 311 Q(OFILE] S. Flo)-.44 E
(yd and E. K)-.11 E(ohler)-.385 E 2.75(.P)-.605 G
(ro\214le for DCCP Congestion Control ID 2:)-2.75 E(TCP-lik)129.6 324 Q
2.75(eC)-.11 G(ongestion Control.)-2.75 E
(draft-ietf-dccp-ccid2-08.txt, w)5.5 E(ork in progress,)-.11 E(No)129.6
337 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G(mber 2004.).165 E([CCID 3 PR)100.8 353.6 Q
(OFILE] S. Flo)-.44 E(yd, E. K)-.11 E(ohler)-.385 E 2.75(,a)-.44 G
(nd J. P)-2.75 E(adh)-.165 E 2.75(ye. Pro\214le)-.055 F
(for DCCP Congestion)2.75 E(Control ID 3: TFRC Congestion Control.)129.6
366.6 Q(draft-ietf-dccp-ccid3-08.txt, w)5.5 E(ork in)-.11 E
(progress, No)129.6 379.6 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G(mber 2004.).165 E
([DCCP] E. K)100.8 396.2 Q(ohler)-.385 E 2.75(,M)-.44 G 2.75(.H)-2.75 G
(andle)-2.75 E 1.43 -.715(y, a)-.165 H(nd S. Flo).715 E 2.75
(yd. Datagram)-.11 F(Congestion Control Protocol.)2.75 E
(draft-ietf-dccp-spec-09.txt, w)129.6 409.2 Q(ork in progress, No)-.11 E
-.165(ve)-.165 G(mber 2004.).165 E
([MEASWEB] Ramon Caceres and Sally Flo)100.8 425.8 Q 2.75
(yd. Measurement)-.11 F(Studies of End-to-End)2.75 E
(Congestion Control in the Internet.)129.6 438.8 Q -.88(We)5.5 G 2.75
(bP).88 G(age, 2001.)-2.915 E([FF99] S. Flo)100.8 455.4 Q(yd and K. F)
-.11 E 2.75(all. Promoting)-.165 F
(the Use of End-to-End Congestion Control in the)2.75 E 2.75
(Internet. IEEE/A)129.6 468.4 R(CM T)-.44 E(ransactions on Netw)-.385 E
(orking, August 1999.)-.11 E([MC01] S. McCreary and K.C. Claf)100.8 485
Q(fy)-.275 E 5.5(.T)-.715 G(rends in W)-5.885 E(ide Area IP T)-.44 E
(raf)-.385 E(\214c P)-.275 E(atterns: A V)-.165 E(ie)-.66 E(w)-.275 E
(from Ames Internet Exchange.)129.6 498 Q(ITC Specialist Seminar)5.5 E
2.75(,2)-.44 G 2.75(001. URL)-2.75 F(http://www)129.6 511 Q(.caida.or)
-.715 E(g/outreach/papers/2000/AIX0005/.)-.198 E
([RFC 1191] J. C. Mogul and S. E. Deering.)100.8 527.6 Q -.165(Pa)5.5 G
(th MTU Disco).165 E -.165(ve)-.165 G(ry).165 E 5.5(.R)-.715 G(FC 1191.)
-5.5 E([RFC 2026] S. Bradner)100.8 544.2 Q 5.5(.T)-.605 G
(he Internet Standards Process -- Re)-5.5 E(vision 3.)-.275 E(RFC 2026.)
5.5 E([RFC 2309] B. Braden et al.)100.8 560.8 Q
(Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion)5.5 E -1.342 -.814
(Av o)129.6 573.8 T(idance in the Internet.).814 E(RFC 2309.)5.5 E
([RFC 2326] H. Schulzrinne, A. Rao, and R. Lanphier)100.8 590.4 Q 5.5
(.R)-.605 G(eal T)-5.5 E(ime Streaming Protocol)-.385 E(\(R)129.6 603.4
Q 2.75(TSP\). RFC)-.66 F(2326.)2.75 E
([RFC 2481] K. Ramakrishnan and S. Flo)100.8 620 Q 2.75(yd. A)-.11 F
(Proposal to add Explicit Congestion)2.75 E
(Noti\214cation \(ECN\) to IP)129.6 633 Q 5.5(.R)-1.221 G(FC 2481.)-5.5
E([RFC 2525] V)100.8 649.6 Q 2.75(.P)-1.419 G(axson et al.)-2.915 E(Kno)
5.5 E(wn TCP Implementation Problems.)-.275 E(RFC 2525.)5.5 E
([RFC 2914] S. Flo)100.8 666.2 Q 2.75(yd. Congestion)-.11 F
(Control Principles.)2.75 E(RFC 2914.)5.5 E([RFC 2960] R. Ste)100.8
682.8 Q -.11(wa)-.275 G(rt, Q. Xie, K. Morneault, C. Sharp, H. Schw).11
E(arzbauer)-.11 E 2.75(,T)-.44 G 2.75(.T)-3.564 G(aylor)-3.63 E 2.75(,I)
-.44 G(.)-2.75 E(Rytina, M. Kalla, L. Zhang, and V)129.6 695.8 Q 2.75
(.P)-1.419 G 2.75(axson. Stream)-2.915 F(Control T)2.75 E
(ransmission Protocol.)-.385 E(RFC 2960.)129.6 708.8 Q(Flo)72 769 Q
(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E 233.01(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(11. [P)
2.75 F(age 15])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Page: 16 16
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E
([RFC 3124] H. Balakrishnan and S. Seshan.)100.8 85 Q
(The Congestion Manager)5.5 E 5.5(.R)-.605 G(FC 3124.)-5.5 E
([RFC 3261] J. Rosenber)100.8 101.6 Q
(g, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J. Peterson, R.)-.198 E
(Sparks, M. Handle)129.6 114.6 Q 1.43 -.715(y, a)-.165 H(nd E. Schooler)
.715 E 5.5(.S)-.605 G(IP: Session Initiation Protocol.)-5.5 E(RFC 3261.)
5.5 E([RFC 3448] M. Handle)100.8 131.2 Q 1.43 -.715(y, S)-.165 H 2.75
(.F).715 G(lo)-2.75 E(yd, J. P)-.11 E(adh)-.165 E(ye, and J. W)-.055 E
(idmer)-.44 E 5.5(.T)-.605 G(CP Friendly Rate Control)-5.5 E
(\(TFRC\): Protocol Speci\214cation.)129.6 144.2 Q(RFC 3448.)5.5 E
([RFC 3540] D. W)100.8 160.8 Q(etherall, D. Ely)-.88 E 2.75(,a)-.715 G
(nd N. Spring.)-2.75 E(Rob)5.5 E(ust ECN Signaling with Nonces.)-.22 E
(RFC 3540.)129.6 173.8 Q([RFC 3714] S. Flo)100.8 190.4 Q(yd and J. K)
-.11 E(empf, editors.)-.275 E(IAB Concerns Re)5.5 E -.055(ga)-.165 G
(rding Congestion Control).055 E(for V)129.6 203.4 Q(oice T)-1.419 E
(raf)-.385 E(\214c in the Internet.)-.275 E(RFC 3714.)5.5 E
([RFC 3758] R. Ste)100.8 220 Q -.11(wa)-.275 G
(rt, M. Ramalho, Q. Xie, M. T).11 E(ue)-.495 E -.165(xe)-.165 G
(n, and P).165 E 2.75(.C)-1.221 G 2.75(onrad. Stream)-2.75 F(Control)
2.75 E -.385(Tr)129.6 233 S(ansmission Protocol \(SCTP\) P).385 E
(artial Reliability Extension.)-.165 E(RFC 3758.)5.5 E([R)100.8 249.6 Q
(UTS] Requirements for Unicast T)-.44 E(ransport/Sessions \(R)-.385 E
(UTS\) BOF)-.44 E 2.75(,D)-.88 G 2.75(ec. 7,)-2.75 F 2.75(1998. URL)2.75
F("http://www)129.6 262.6 Q(.ietf.or)-.715 E
(g/proceedings/98dec/43rd-ietf-98dec-142.html".)-.198 E([TBIT] J. P)
100.8 279.2 Q(adh)-.165 E(ye and S. Flo)-.055 E 2.75(yd. Identifying)
-.11 F(the TCP Beha)2.75 E(vior of W)-.22 E(eb Serv)-.88 E(ers.)-.165 E
(SIGCOMM 2001.)129.6 292.2 Q/F1 11/Times-Bold@0 SF(12.)72 318.2 Q/F2 14
/Times-Bold@0 SF -.7(Au)5.5 G(thors' Addr).7 E(esses)-.252 E F0
(Sally Flo)100.8 334.8 Q(yd <\215o)-.11 E(yd@icir)-.11 E(.or)-.605 E(g>)
-.198 E(ICSI Center for Internet Research \(ICIR\),)100.8 347.8 Q
(International Computer Science Institute,)100.8 360.8 Q
(1947 Center Street, Suite 600)100.8 373.8 Q(Berk)100.8 386.8 Q(ele)-.11
E 1.43 -.715(y, C)-.165 H 2.75(A9).715 G(4704.)-2.75 E(USA)100.8 399.8 Q
(Mark Handle)100.8 416.4 Q 2.75(y<)-.165 G(M.Handle)-2.75 E
(y@cs.ucl.ac.uk>)-.165 E(Department of Computer Science)100.8 429.4 Q
(Uni)100.8 442.4 Q -.165(ve)-.275 G(rsity Colle).165 E(ge London)-.165 E
(Go)100.8 455.4 Q(wer Street)-.275 E(London WC1E 6BT)100.8 468.4 Q(UK)
100.8 481.4 Q(Eddie K)100.8 498 Q(ohler <k)-.385 E(ohler@cs.ucla.edu>)
-.11 E(4531C Boelter Hall)100.8 511 Q(UCLA Computer Science Department)
100.8 524 Q(Los Angeles, CA 90095)100.8 537 Q(USA)100.8 550 Q F1(13.)72
589 Q F2(Full Copyright Statement)5.5 E F0(Cop)100.8 605.6 Q
(yright \(C\) The Internet Society 2005.)-.11 E
(This document is subject to the rights, licenses)5.5 E
(and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and e)100.8 618.6 Q
(xcept as set forth therein, the authors retain all)-.165 E
(their rights.)100.8 631.6 Q
(This document and the information contained herein are pro)100.8 648.2
Q(vided on an "AS IS" basis and)-.165 E(THE CONTRIB)100.8 661.2 Q(UT)
-.11 E(OR, THE ORGANIZA)-.198 E(TION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS)-1.221 E
(SPONSORED BY \(IF ANY\), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET)100.8
674.2 Q(ENGINEERING T)100.8 687.2 Q(ASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL W)-1.023 E
(ARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR)-1.32 E(IMPLIED, INCLUDING B)100.8 700.2 Q(UT NO)
-.11 E 2.75(TL)-.44 G(IMITED T)-2.75 E 2.75(OA)-.198 G(NY W)-2.75 E
(ARRANTY THA)-1.32 E 2.75(TT)-1.221 G(HE USE)-2.75 E(OF THE INFORMA)
100.8 713.2 Q(TION HEREIN WILL NO)-1.221 E 2.75(TI)-.44 G
(NFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY)-2.75 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)
-.165 E 233.01(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(13. [P)2.75 F(age 16])-.165 E
0 Cg EP
%%Page: 17 17
%%BeginPageSetup
BP
%%EndPageSetup
/F0 11/Times-Roman@0 SF(INTERNET)72 49 Q 68.837(-DRAFT Expires:)-1.012 F
(February 2006)2.75 E(August 2005)107.534 E(IMPLIED W)100.8 85 Q
(ARRANTIES OF MERCHANT)-1.32 E(ABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A)-1.023 E -1.012
(PA)100.8 98 S -.66(RT)1.012 G(ICULAR PURPOSE.).66 E/F1 11/Times-Bold@0
SF(14.)72 124 Q/F2 14/Times-Bold@0 SF(Intellectual Pr)5.5 E(operty)-.252
E F0(The IETF tak)100.8 140.6 Q(es no position re)-.11 E -.055(ga)-.165
G(rding the v).055 E(alidity or scope of an)-.275 E 2.75(yI)-.165 G
(ntellectual Property)-2.75 E(Rights or other rights that might be clai\
med to pertain to the implementation or use of the)100.8 153.6 Q
(technology described in this document or the e)100.8 166.6 Q
(xtent to which an)-.165 E 2.75(yl)-.165 G(icense under such rights)
-2.75 E(might or might not be a)100.8 179.6 Q -.275(va)-.22 G
(ilable; nor does it represent that it has made an).275 E 2.75(yi)-.165
G(ndependent)-2.75 E(ef)100.8 192.6 Q(fort to identify an)-.275 E 2.75
(ys)-.165 G(uch rights.)-2.75 E
(Information on the procedures with respect to rights in)5.5 E
(RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.)100.8 205.6 Q
(Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and an)100.8
222.2 Q 2.75(ya)-.165 G(ssurances of licenses to)-2.75 E(be made a)100.8
235.2 Q -.275(va)-.22 G(ilable, or the result of an attempt made to obt\
ain a general license or).275 E(permission for the use of such propriet\
ary rights by implementers or users of this)100.8 248.2 Q(speci\214cati\
on can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at)100.8 261.2 Q
(http://www)100.8 274.2 Q(.ietf.or)-.715 E(g/ipr)-.198 E(.)-.605 E
(The IETF in)100.8 290.8 Q(vites an)-.44 E 2.75(yi)-.165 G
(nterested party to bring to its attention an)-2.75 E 2.75(yc)-.165 G
(op)-2.75 E(yrights, patents or)-.11 E
(patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may co)100.8
303.8 Q -.165(ve)-.165 G 2.75(rt).165 G(echnology that may be)-2.75 E
(required to implement this standard.)100.8 316.8 Q
(Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-)5.5 E(ipr@ietf.or)
100.8 329.8 Q(g.)-.198 E(Flo)72 769 Q(yd/Handle)-.11 E(y/K)-.165 E
233.01(ohler Section)-.385 F 2.75(14. [P)2.75 F(age 17])-.165 E 0 Cg EP
%%Trailer
end
%%EOF