Coding and congestion control in transport
draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nwcrg RG)
Last updated 2020-07-09
Replaces draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
NWCRG                                                            N. Kuhn
Internet-Draft                                                      CNES
Intended status: Informational                                 E. Lochin
Expires: January 10, 2021                                   ISAE-SUPAERO
                                                               F. Michel
                                                               UCLouvain
                                                                M. Welzl
                                                      University of Oslo
                                                            July 9, 2020

               Coding and congestion control in transport
               draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-03

Abstract

   FEC coding is a reliability mechanism that is distinct and separate
   from the loss detection of congestion controls.  Using FEC coding can
   be a useful way to deal with transfer tail losses or with networks
   having non-congestion losses.  However, FEC coding mechanisms should
   not hide congestion signals.  This memo offers a discussion of how
   FEC coding and congestion control can coexist.  Another objective is
   to encourage the research community to also consider congestion
   control aspects when proposing and comparing FEC coding solutions in
   communication systems.

   This document is the product of the Coding for Efficient Network
   Communications Research Group (NWCRG).  The scope of the document is
   end-to-end communications: FEC coding for tunnels is out-of-the scope
   of the document.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2021.

Kuhn, et al.            Expires January 10, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Coding and congestion                July 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Separate channels, separate entities  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  FEC within the transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   There are cases where deploying FEC coding improves the performance
   of a transmission.  As an example, it may take time for the sender to
   detect transfer tail losses (losses that occur at the end of a
   transfer, where e.g.  TCP obtains no more ACKs to quickly repair the
   loss via retransmission).  This would improve the experience of
   applications using short flows.  Another example are networks where
   non-congestion losses are persistent and prevent a sender from
   exploiting the link capacity.

   Coding is a reliability mechanism that is distinct and separate from
   the loss detection of congestion controls.  [RFC5681] defines TCP as
Show full document text