NWCRG N. Kuhn
Internet-Draft CNES
Intended status: Informational E. Lochin
Expires: May 3, 2021 ENAC
F. Michel
UCLouvain
M. Welzl
University of Oslo
October 30, 2020
Coding and congestion control in transport
draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion-04
Abstract
Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) is a reliability mechanism that is
distinct and separate from the retransmission logic in reliable
transfer protocols such as TCP. Using FEC coding can help 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 May 3, 2021.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Separate channels, separate entities . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. FEC within the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Fairness, redundacy rate and congestion signals . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Fairness, a policy concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Fairness and impact on non-coded flows . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.1. FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.2. FEC within the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.3. FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Congestion control and recovered symbols . . . . . . . . 11
6.3.1. FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3.2. FEC within the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3.3. FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Interactions between congestion control and coding rates 12
6.4.1. FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4.2. FEC within the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4.3. FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5. On the useless repair symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5.1. FEC above the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5.2. FEC within the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5.3. FEC below the transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Open research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Activities related to congestion control and coding . . . 13
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
7.2. Open research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Advices for evaluating coding mechanisms . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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 repair the loss via
retransmission quickly). Allowing the receiver to recover such
losses instead of having to rely on a retransmission could 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
a loss-based congestion control; since FEC coding repairs such
losses, blindly applying it may easily lead to an implementation that
also hides a congestion signal from the sender. It is important to
ensure that such information hiding does not occur.
FEC coding and congestion control can be seen as two separate
channels. In practice, implementations may mix the signals that are
exchanged on these channels. This memo offers a discussion of how
FEC coding and congestion control can coexist. Another objective is
to encourage the research community also to consider congestion
control aspects when proposing and comparing FEC coding solutions in
communication systems. This document does not aim at proposing
guidelines for characterizing FEC coding solutions.
The proposed document considers an end-to-end unicast data transfer
with FEC coding at the application (above the transport), within the
transport or directly below the transport. The typical application
scenario considered in the current version of the document is a
client browsing the web or watching a live video. This memo may be
extended to cases with multiple paths.
This document represents the collaborative work and consensus of the
Coding for Efficient Network Communications Research Group (NWCRG);
it is not an IETF product and is not a standard. The document
follows the terminology proposed in the taxonomy document [RFC8406].
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
2. Separate channels, separate entities
Figure 1 presents the notations that will be used in this document
and introduces the Congestion Control (CC) and Forward Erasure
Correction (FEC) channels. The Congestion Control channel carries
source packets from a sender to a receiver, and packets signaling
information about the network (number of packets received vs. lost,
ECN marks, etc.) from the receiver to the sender. The Forward
Erasure Correction channel carries repair symbols (from the sender to
the receiver) and potential information signaling which packets have
been repaired (from the receiver to the sender). It is worth
pointing out that there are cases where these channels are not
separated.
SENDER RECEIVER
+------+ +------+
| | ----- source packets ---->| |
| CC | | CC |
| | <--- network information ---| |
+------+ +------+
+------+ +------+
| | ----- repair symbols ---->| |
| FEC | | FEC |
| | <--- info: repaired symbols --| |
+------+ +------+
Figure 1: Notations and separate channels
Inside a host, the CC and FEC entities can be regarded as
conceptually separate:
| ^ | ^
| source | coding |packets | sending
| packets | rate |requirements | rate (or
v | v | window)
+---------------+source +-----------------+
| FEC |and/or | CC |
| |repair | |source
| |symbols | |packets
+---------------+==> +-----------------+==>
^ ^
| signaling about | network
| losses and/or | information
| repaired symbols
Figure 2: Separate entities (sender-side)
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
| |
| source and/or | packets
| repair symbols |
v v
+---------------+ +-----------------+
| FEC |signaling | CC |
| |repaired | |network
| |symbols | |information
+---------------+==> +-----------------+==>
Figure 3: Separate entities (receiver-side)
Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide more details than Figure 1. Some
elements are introduced:
o 'network information' (input control plane for the transport
including CC): refers not only to the network information that is
explicitly signaled from the receiver, but all the information a
congestion control obtains from a network (e.g., TCP can estimate
the latency and the available capacity at the bottleneck).
o 'requirements' (input control plane for the transport including
CC): refers to application requirements such as upper/lower rate
bounds, periods of quiescence, or a priority.
o 'sending rate (or window)' (output control plane for the transport
including CC): refers to the rate at which a congestion control
decides to transmit packets based on 'network information'.
o 'signaling repaired symbols' (input control plane for the FEC):
refers to the information a FEC sender can obtain from a FEC
receiver about the performance of the FEC solution as seen by the
receiver.
o 'coding rate' (output control plane for the FEC): refers to the
coding rate that is used by the FEC solution.
o 'source and/or repair symbols' (data plane for both the FEC and
the CC): refers to the data that is transmitted. The sender can
decide to send source symbols only (meaning that the coding rate
is 0), repair symbols only (if the solution decides not to send
the original source packets) or a mix of both.
The inputs to FEC (incoming data packets without repair symbols, and
signaling from the receiver about losses and/or repaired symbols) are
distinct from the inputs to CC. The latter calculates a sending rate
or window from network information, and it takes the packet to send
as input, sometimes along with application requirements such as
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
upper/lower rate bounds, periods of quiescence, or a priority. It is
not clear that the ACK signals feeding into a congestion control
algorithm are useful to FEC in their raw form, and vice versa -
information about repaired blocks may be quite irrelevant to a CC
algorithm.
The choice of the adequate transport layer may be related to
application requirements:
o In the case of an unreliable data transfer, the transport layer
may provide a non-reliable transport service (e.g. UDP or DCCP
[RFC4340] or a partially reliable transport protocol such as SCTP
with partial reliability [RFC3758]). Depending on the amount of
redundancy and network conditions, there could be cases where it
becomes impossible to carry traffic.
o In the case of a reliable data transfer, the transport layer may
implement a retransmission mechanism to guarantee the reliability
of the file transfer (e.g. TCP). Depending on how the FEC and CC
functions are scheduled (FEC above CC, FEC in CC, FEC below CC),
the impact of reliable transport on the FEC reliability mechanisms
is different.
3. FEC above the transport
3.1. Flowchart
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
| source ^ source
| packets | packets
v |
+-------------+ +-------------+
|FEC | signaling|FEC |
| | repaired| |
| | symbols| |
| | <==| |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| source ^ ^ source
| and/or | sending | and/or
| repair | rate | repair
| symbols | (or window) | symbols
v | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Transport |source network|Transport |
|(incl. CC) |and/or information| |
| |repair <==| |
| |packets | |
+-------------+==> +-------------+
SENDER RECEIVER
Figure 4: FEC above the transport
Figure 4 present an architecture where FEC operates on top of the
transport.
3.2. Discussion
The advantage of this approach is that the FEC overhead does not
contribute to congestion in the network. When congestion control is
implemented at the transport layer, the repair symbols are sent
following the congestion window. This approach can result in
improved quality of experience for latency sensitive applications
such as VoIP.
This approach requires that the transport protocol does not implement
a fully reliable data transfer service (e.g., based on lost packet
retransmission). UDP is an example of a protocol for which this
approach is relevant. For reliable transfers, coding usage does not
guarantee better performance and would mainly reduce goodput for
large file transfers.
This discussion section is extended in Section 6.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
4. FEC within the transport
4.1. Flowchart
| source | sending ^ source
| packets | rate | packets
v v |
+------------+ +------------+
| Transport | | Transport |
| | | |
| +---+ +--+ | signaling| +---+ +--+ |
| |FEC| |CC| | repaired| |FEC| |CC| |
| +---+ +--+ |source symbols| +---+ +--+ |
| |and/or <==| |
| |repair network| |
| |packets information| |
+------------+ ==> <==+------------+
SENDER RECEIVER
Figure 5: FEC in the transport
Figure 5 presents an architecture where FEC operates within the
transport. The repair symbols are sent within what the congestion
window allows, such as in [CTCP].
4.2. Discussion
The advantage of this approach allows a joint optimization between
the CC and the FEC. Moreover, the transmission of repair symbols
does not add congestion in potentially congested networks but helps
repair lost packets (such as tail losses).
For reliable transfers, including redundancy reduces goodput for
large file transfers but the amount of repair symbols can be adapted,
e.g. depending on the congestion window size. There is a trade-off
between the cost in capacity used to transmit source packets and the
benefits brought out by transmitting repair symbols (e.g. unlocking
the receive buffer if this is limiting). The coding ratio needs to
be carefully designed. For small files, sending repair symbols when
there is no more data to transmit could help to reduce the transfer
time. In general, sending repair symbols could avoid a silent period
between the transmission of the last packet in the send buffer and 1)
firing the retransmission of lost packets, or 2) the transmission of
new packets.
This discussion section is extended in Section 6.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
5. FEC below the transport
5.1. Flowchart
| source | sending rate ^ source
| packets | (or window) | packets
v v |
+--------------+ +--------------+
|Transport | network|Transport |
|(including CC)| information| |
| | <==| |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| source packets ^ source packets
v |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| FEC |source | FEC |
| |and/or signaling| |
| |repair repaired| |
| |symbols symbols| |
| |==> <==| |
+--------------+ +--------------+
SENDER RECEIVER
Figure 6: FEC below the transport
Figure 6 presents an architecture where FEC is applied end-to-end
below the transport layer, but above the link layer. Note that it is
common to apply FEC at the link layer, in which it contributes to the
total capacity that a link exposes to upper layers. This application
of FEC is out of scope of this document. In the scenario considered
here, the repair symbols are sent on top of what is allowed by the
congestion control.
5.2. Discussion
In this case, including redundancy adds congestion without reducing
goodput but leads to potential fairness issues. The effective
bitrate is indeed higher than the CC's computed fair share due to the
sending of repair symbols and the losses are hidden from the
transport. This may cause a problem for loss-based congestion
detection, but it is not a problem for delay-based congestion
detection.
The advantage of this approach is that it can result in performance
gains when there are persistent transmission losses along the path.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
The drawback of this approach is that it can induce congestion in
already congested networks. The coding ratio needs to be carefully
designed.
Examples of the solution could be adding a given percentage of the
congestion window as supplementary symbols or sending a given amount
of repair symbols at a given rate. The redundancy flow can be
decorrelated from the congestion control that manages source packets:
a separate congestion control entity could be introduced to manage
the amount of repaired packets to transmit on the FEC channel. The
separate congestion control instances could be made to work together
while adhering to priorities, as in coupled congestion control for
RTP media [RFC8699] in case all traffic can be assumed to take the
same path, or otherwise with a multipath congestion window coupling
mechanism as in Multipath TCP [RFC6356]. Another possibility would
be to exploit a lower than best-effort congestion control [RFC6297]
for repair symbols.
This discussion section is extended in Section 6.
6. Fairness, redundacy rate and congestion signals
The objective of this section is to further detail some aspects that
have been expressed in previous discussion subsections.
6.1. Fairness, a policy concern
The contract between the client and the operator may guarantee a
minimum data-rate (e.g. mobile networks). However, for residential
accesses, the data-rate can be guaranteed for the customer premises
equipment, but not necessarily for the client. The quality of
service that guarantees fairness between the different clients can be
seen as a policy concern [I-D.briscoe-tsvarea-fair].
While flow level fairness does not embody the actual application
level fairness, the share of available capacity between single flows
can help assess when one flow starves the other. Clients may share a
bottleneck that may not be ruled by a quality of service mechanism,
e.g. in case of:
o a mobile network client running several applications;
o two clients on a residential access.
This document considers fairness as an index to quantify the impact
of the addition of coded flows on non-coded flows when they share the
same bottleneck. This document does not aim at contributing to the
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
definition of fairness at a wider scale. This document assumes that
the non-coded flows respond to congestion signals from the network.
6.2. Fairness and impact on non-coded flows
6.2.1. FEC above the transport
The addition of coding within the flow does not impact on the
interaction between coded and non-coded flows. This interaction
would mainly depend on the congestion controls embedded in each host.
6.2.2. FEC within the transport
The addition of coding within the flow may impact the congestion
control mechanism and hide congestion losses. Specific interaction
between congestion controls and coding schemes can be proposed (see
Section 6.3, Section 6.4 and Section 6.5). If no specific
interaction is introduced, the coding scheme may hide congestion
losses from the congestion controller and the description of
Section 6.2.3 may apply.
6.2.3. FEC below the transport
In this case, the coding scheme may hide congestion losses from the
congestion controller. There are cases where this can drastically
reduce the goodput of non-coded flows. Depending on the congestion
control, it may be possible to signal to the congestion control
mechanism that there was congestion (loss) even when a packet has
been recovered, e.g. using ECN, to reduce the impact on the non-coded
flows (see Section 6.3.3 and [TENTET]).
6.3. Congestion control and recovered symbols
The objective of this subsection is to describe potential
interactions between the congestion control and the recovered
symbols.
6.3.1. FEC above the transport
The congestion control may not be able to differentiate repair
symbols from actual source packets. The relevance of adding coding
at the application layer is related to the needs of the application.
For real-time applications, this approach may reduce the number of
retransmission. The usage of a non-reliable transport is more
adequate in this case.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
6.3.2. FEC within the transport
If the two FEC and CC channels are decoupled, the endpoint may
exploit different protocols for each channel. The channels may be
coupled and one single protocol may be exploited. In both cases, the
receiver can differentiate source packets and repair symbols. The
receiver may indicate both the number of source packets received and
repair symbols that were actually useful in the recovery process of
packets.
6.3.3. FEC below the transport
The congestion control may not know what is going on in the network
underneath and whether a coding scheme is introduced or not. The
congestion control may behave as if no coding scheme is introduced.
The only way for a coding channel to indicate that symbols have been
recovered is to exploit existing signaling that is understood by the
congestion control mechanism. An example would be to indicate to a
TCP sender that a packet has been recovered (i.e., congestion has
occurred), by using ECN signaling [TENTET].
6.4. Interactions between congestion control and coding rates
This section discusses to what extent the interaction between the
congestion control and the coding rates is possible.
6.4.1. FEC above the transport
The coding rate applied at the application layer mainly depends on
the available capacity given by the congestion control underneath.
Adapting the coding rate to the minimum required data rate of the
application may reduce packet losses and improve the quality of
experience.
6.4.2. FEC within the transport
In this case, there is an important flexibility in the trade-off,
inherent to the use of coding, between (1) reducing goodput when
useless repair symbols are transmitted and (2) helping to recover
sooner from transmission and congestion losses. As explained in
Section 6.3.2, the receiver may indicate to the sender the number of
packets that have been received or recovered. The sender may exploit
this information to tune the coding ratio. As one example of
flexibility of this case, coupling an increased transmission rate
with an increasing or decreasing coding rate could be envisioned. A
server may use an increasing coding rate as a probe of the channel
capacity and adapt the congestion control transmission rate.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
6.4.3. FEC below the transport
In this case, the coding rate can be tuned depending on the number of
recovered symbols and the rate at which the sender transmits data.
The coding scheme is not aware of the congestion control
implementation, making it hard for the coding scheme to apply the
relevant coding rate.
6.5. On the useless repair symbols
There are cases where useless repair symbols may be transmitted.
These impact on the network load and may reduce the goodput of the
flow without concrete gains.
6.5.1. FEC above the transport
In this case, the discussion depends on application needs. The only
case where adding useless repair symbols does not result in reduced
goodput is when the application needs a limited amount of goodput
(e.g., VoIP traffic). In this case, the useless repair symbols would
only impact the amount of data generated in the network.
6.5.2. FEC within the transport
The sender may exploit the information given by the receiver to
reduce the number of useless repair symbols and the resulting goodput
reduction.
6.5.3. FEC below the transport
In this case, the useless repair symbols only impact the load of the
network without actual gain for the coded flow.
7. Open research questions
This section provides a simplified state-of-the art of the activities
related to congestion control and coding. The objective is to
identify open research questions and contribute to advice when
evaluating coding mechanisms.
7.1. Activities related to congestion control and coding
We map activities related to congestion control and coding with the
organization presented in this document:
o For the FEC above transport case: TBD
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
o For the FEC within transport case:
[I-D.swett-nwcrg-coding-for-quic], [QUIC-FEC], [RFC5109].
o For the FEC below transport case: [NCTCP],
[I-D.detchart-nwcrg-tetrys].
7.2. Open research questions
The research questions should be mapped following the organization of
this document. In all these three use-cases, open questions remain.
There is a general trade-off, inherent to the use of coding, between
(1) reducing goodput when useless repair symbols are transmitted and
(2) helping to recover from transmission and congestion losses.
For the FEC above transport case, there is a trade-off related to the
amount of redundancy to add, as a function of the transport layer
protocol and application requirements.
For the FEC within transport case, recovering lost symbols may hide
congestion losses to the congestion control. Some existing solutions
already propose to disambiguate acked packets from rebuilt packets
[QUIC-FEC]. New signalling methods and FEC-recovery-aware congestion
controls could be proposed.
For the FEC below transport case, there are opportunities for
introducing interaction between congestion control and coding schemes
to improve the quality of experience while guaranteeing fairness with
other flows. An open question also resides in the relevance of FEC
when there are multiple streams that exploit the FEC channel.
7.3. Advices for evaluating coding mechanisms
The contribution to research questions should be mapped following the
organization of this document. Otherwise, this may lead to wrong
assumptions on the validity of the proposal and wrong ideas about the
relevance of coding for a given use case.
The discussion provided in this document aims at encouraging the
research community to also consider congestion control aspects when
proposing and comparing FEC coding solutions in communication
systems. As one example, this draft proposes discussions on the
impact of the proposed FEC solution on congestion control, especially
loss-based congestion control mechanisms. When a research work aims
at improving the throughput by hiding the packet loss signal from the
congestion control, the authors should 1) discuss the advantages of
using the proposed FEC solution compared to replacing the congestion
control by one that ignores a portion of the encountered losses, 2)
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
critically discuss the impact of hiding packet loss from the
congestion control mechanism.
8. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins, Dave Oran, Carsten Bormann, Vincent
Roca and Marie-Jose Montpetit for their useful comments that helped
improve the document.
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
FEC and CC schemes can contribute to DoS attacks. This is not
specific to this document.
In case of FEC below the transport, the aggregate rate of source and
repair packets may exceed the rate at which a congestion control
mechanism allows an application to send. This could result in an
application obtaining more than its fair share of the network
capacity.
11. Informative References
[CTCP] Kim (et al.), M., "Network Coded TCP (CTCP)",
arXiv 1212.2291v3, 2013.
[I-D.briscoe-tsvarea-fair]
Briscoe, B., "Flow Rate Fairness: Dismantling a Religion",
draft-briscoe-tsvarea-fair-02 (work in progress), July
2007.
[I-D.detchart-nwcrg-tetrys]
Detchart, J., Lochin, E., Lacan, J., and V. Roca, "Tetrys,
an On-the-Fly Network Coding protocol", draft-detchart-
nwcrg-tetrys-05 (work in progress), February 2020.
[I-D.swett-nwcrg-coding-for-quic]
Swett, I., Montpetit, M., Roca, V., and F. Michel, "Coding
for QUIC", draft-swett-nwcrg-coding-for-quic-04 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[NCTCP] Sundararajan (et al.), J., "Network Coding Meets TCP:
Theory and Implementation", IEEE
INFOCOM 10.1109/JPROC.2010.2093850, 2009.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
[QUIC-FEC]
Michel (et al.), F., "QUIC-FEC: Bringing the benefits of
Forward Erasure Correction to QUIC", IFIP
Networking 10.23919/IFIPNetworking.2019.8816838, 2019.
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC5109] Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC5109, December
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC6297] Welzl, M. and D. Ros, "A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort
Transport Protocols", RFC 6297, DOI 10.17487/RFC6297, June
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6297>.
[RFC6356] Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled
Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols",
RFC 6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6356>.
[RFC8406] Adamson, B., Adjih, C., Bilbao, J., Firoiu, V., Fitzek,
F., Ghanem, S., Lochin, E., Masucci, A., Montpetit, M-J.,
Pedersen, M., Peralta, G., Roca, V., Ed., Saxena, P., and
S. Sivakumar, "Taxonomy of Coding Techniques for Efficient
Network Communications", RFC 8406, DOI 10.17487/RFC8406,
June 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8406>.
[RFC8699] Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled Congestion
Control for RTP Media", RFC 8699, DOI 10.17487/RFC8699,
January 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8699>.
[TENTET] Lochin, E., "On the joint use of TCP and Network Coding",
NWCRG session IETF 100, 2017.
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Coding and congestion October 2020
Authors' Addresses
Nicolas Kuhn
CNES
Email: nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr
Emmanuel Lochin
ENAC
Email: emmanuel.lochin@enac.fr
Francois Michel
UCLouvain
Email: francois.michel@uclouvain.be
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no
Kuhn, et al. Expires May 3, 2021 [Page 17]