Framework and Requirements for TRIGTRAN
draft-dawkins-trigtran-framework-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Spencer Dawkins | ||
| Last updated | 2003-02-26 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
IETF-standardized unicast transport protocols have been designed to allow two end points to maintain communications by individually reacting to loss or degraded packet arrival times. Historically, those protocols have assumed loss is congestive and have reacted by decreasing the packet transmission rate to ease congestion. There are a number of cases, however, where these assumptions are incorrect, and one or more path segments present losses due to intermittent connectivity, a high uncorrected error rate, or the need for access path changes ('hand-off's). Previous work [PILC] has addressed these conditions using end-to-end mechanisms. This draft examines the use of an on-path signaling mechanisms capable of providing advisory notifications for use in modifying the behavior of the transport in order to better respond to actual network conditions. This draft serves to create discussion in this area as there are many ways to skin the cat. We are interested in hearing about them through open discussion.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)