|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 3481 (2003)
|
|
Title:
|
TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation Wireless Networks
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This document describes a profile for optimizing TCP to adapt so that it handles paths including second (2.5G) and third (3G) generation
wireless networks. It describes the relevant characteristics of 2.5G and 3G networks, and specific features of example deployments of such
networks. This reference is needed in Rec. E.804 to describe media downloads.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/.
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the listed RFCs are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion Control",/
RFC 2581, April 1999./
/
[2] Jacobson, V., Braden, R. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for High/
Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992./
/
[3] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S. and R. Romanow, "TCP/
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996./
/
[4] Allman, M., Floyd, S. and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's/
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002./
/
Inamura, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 19]/
RFC 3481 TCP over 2.5G/3G February 2003/
/
[5] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M. and V. Magret, "End-to-end/
Performance Implications of Slow Links", BCP 48, RFC 3150, July/
2001./
/
[6] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,/
November 1990./
/
[7] Knowles, S., "IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU/
Discovery", RFC 1435, March 1993./
/
[8] McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for IP/
version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996./
/
[9] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of/
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,/
September 2001./
/
[10] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H. and S. Floyd, "Enhancing TCP's Loss/
Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042, January 2001./
/
[11] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission/
Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000./
/
[12] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,/
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., Liu,/
Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Wiebke, T.,/
Yoshimura, T. and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC):/
Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed",/
RFC 3095, July 2001./
/
[13] Degermark, M., Nordgren, B. and S. Pink, "IP Header/
Compression", RFC 2507, February 1999./
/
[14] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA Internet/
Program Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981./
/
[15] Floyd, S. and T. Henderson, "The NewReno Modification to TCP's/
Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 2582, April 1999./
/
[16] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP", RFC/
3241, April 2002./
/
[17] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication/
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989./
/
[18] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)/
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998./
/
Inamura, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 20]/
RFC 3481 TCP over 2.5G/3G February 2003/
/
10. Informative References/
/
[19] Montenegro, G., Dawkins, S., Kojo, M., Magret, V. and N./
Vaidya, "Long Thin Networks", RFC 2757, January 2000./
/
[20] Third Generation Partnership Project, "RLC Protocol/
Specification (3G TS 25.322:)", 1999./
/
[21] Fall, K. and S. Floyd, "Simulation-based Comparisons of Tahoe,/
Reno, and SACK TCP", Computer Communication Review, 26(3) , July/
1996./
/
[22] Fairhurst, G. and L. Wood, "Advice to link designers on link/
Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)", BCP 62, RFC 3366, August 2002./
/
[23] Karn, P., "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", Work in/
Progress./
/
[24] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Magret, V., Vaidya, N. and M./
Kojo, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with/
Errors", BCP 50, RFC 3135, August 2001./
/
[25] Wireless Application Protocol, "WAP Specifications", 2002,/
http://www.wapforum.org./
/
[26] Open Mobile Alliance, "Open Mobile Alliance", 2002,/
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/./
/
[27] Braden, R., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions", RFC/
1644, July 1994./
/
[28] Braden, R., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering, S.,/
Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G., Partridge,/
C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J./
and L. Zhang, "Recommendations on Queue Management and/
Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", RFC 2309, April 1998./
/
[29] IETF, "Robust Header Compression", 2001,/
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rohc-charter.html./
/
[30] Ludwig, R. and R. H. Katz, "The Eifel Algorithm: Making TCP/
Robust Against Spurious Retransmissions", ACM Computer/
Communication Review 30(1), January 2000./
/
[31] Wireless Application Protocol, "WAP Wireless Profiled TCP",/
WAP-225-TCP-20010331-a, April 2001,/
http://www.wapforum.com/what/technical.htm./
/
Inamura, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 21]/
RFC 3481 TCP over 2.5G/3G February 2003/
/
[32] Hadi Salim, J. and U. Ahmed, "Performance Evaluation of Explicit/
Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks", RFC 2884, July/
2000./
/
[33] NTT DoCoMo Technical Journal, "Special Issue on i-mode Service",/
October 1999./
/
[34] NTT DoCoMo Technical Journal, "Special Article on IMT-2000/
Services", September 2001./
/
[35] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M. and M. Podolsky, "An/
Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for/
TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000./
/
[36] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC/
2246, January 1999./
/
[37] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the/
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998./
/
[38] de Vivo, M., O. de Vivo, G., Koeneke, R. and G. Isern, "Internet/
Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP", ACM Computer/
Communication Review 29(1), January 1999./
/
[39] Third Generation Partnership Project, "RRC Protocol/
Specification (3GPP TS 25.331:)", September 2001./
/
[40] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial/
Links", RFC 1144, February 1990./
/
[41] Blanton, E. and M. Allman, "On Making TCP More Robust to Packet/
Reordering", ACM Computer Communication Review 32(1), January/
2002, http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/papers/tcp-reorder-/
ccr.ps./
/
[42] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Improving Round-Trip Time Estimates/
in Reliable Transport Protocols", ACM SIGCOMM 87, 1987./
/
[43] Ludwig, R., Rathonyi, B., Konrad, A. and A. Joseph, "Multi-layer/
tracing of TCP over a reliable wireless link", ACM SIGMETRICS/
99, May 1999./
/
[44] Ludwig, R., Konrad, A., Joseph, A. and R. Katz, "Optimizing the/
End-to-End Performance of Reliable Flows over Wireless Links",/
Kluwer/ACM Wireless Networks Journal Vol. 8, Nos. 2/3, pp. 289-/
299, March-May 2002./
/
Inamura, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 22]/
RFC 3481 TCP over 2.5G/3G February 2003/
/
[45] Gurtov, A., "Making TCP Robust Against Delay Spikes", University/
of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science, Series of/
Publications C, C-2001-53, Nov 2001,/
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/gurtov/papers/report01.html./
/
[46] Stevens, W., "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1; The Protocols",/
Addison Wesley, 1995./
/
[47] Braden, R., "TCP Extensions for High Performance: An Update",/
Work in Progress./
/
[48] Allman, M., Dawkins, S., Glover, D., Griner, J., Tran, D.,/
Henderson, T., Heidemann, J., Touch, J., Kruse, H., Ostermann,/
S., Scott, K. and J. Semke, "Ongoing TCP Research Related to/
Satellites", RFC 2760, February 2000./
/
[49] Allman, M., Glover, D. and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over/
Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms", BCP 28, RFC 2488,/
January 1999./
/
[50] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G. and M./
Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network/
Asymmetry", RFC 3449, December 2002./
/
[51] Kempf, J., "Problem Description: Reasons For Performing Context/
Transfers Between Nodes in an IP Access Network", RFC 3374,/
September 2002./
/
[52] Khafizov, F. and M. Yavuz, "Running TCP over IS-2000", Proc. of/
IEEE ICC, 2002./
/
[53] Khafizov, F. and M. Yavuz, "Analytical Model of RLP in IS-2000/
CDMA Networks", Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference,/
September 2002./
/
[54] Yavuz, M. and F. Khafizov, "TCP over Wireless Links with/
Variable Bandwidth", Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology/
Conference, September 2002./
/
[55] TIA/EIA/cdma2000, "Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility/
Standard for Dual-Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular/
Systems", Washington: Telecommunication Industry Association,/
1999./
/
[56] TIA/EIA/IS-95 Rev A, "Mobile Station - Base Station/
Compatibility Standard for Dual-Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum/
Cellular Systems", Washington: Telecommunication Industry/
Association, 1995./
/
Inamura, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 23]/
RFC 3481 TCP over 2.5G/3G February 2003/
/
[57] TIA/EIA/IS-707-A-2.10, "Data Service Options for Spread Spectrum/
Systems: Radio Link Protocol Type 3", January 2000./
/
[58] Dahlman, E., Beming, P., Knutsson, J., Ovesjo, F., Persson, M./
and C. Roobol, "WCDMA - The Radio Interface for Future Mobile/
Multimedia Communications", IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology,/
vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1105-1118, November 1998./
/
[59] Allman, M. and V. Paxson, "On Estimating End-to-End Network Path/
Properties", ACM SIGCOMM 99, September 1999./
/
[60] Gurtov, A. and R. Ludwig, "Responding to Spurious Timeouts in/
TCP", IEEE INFOCOM'03, March 2003
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
