for lost packets, would prefer CCID 2 to CCID 3. On-line games may
also prefer CCID 2.
- CCID 2 is further described in:
- http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid2-10.txt
+ CCID 2 is further described in RFC 4341,
+ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4341.txt
- This text was extracted from:
- http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13.txt
+ This text was extracted from RFC 4340 (sec. 10.1),
+ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4340.txt
If in doubt, say M.
suitable than CCID 2 for applications such streaming media where a
relatively smooth sending rate is of importance.
- CCID 3 is further described in:
-
- http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid3-11.txt.
+ CCID 3 is further described in RFC 4342,
+ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4342.txt
The TFRC congestion control algorithms were initially described in
RFC 3448.
- This text was extracted from:
- http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13.txt
+ This text was extracted from RFC 4340 (sec. 10.2),
+ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4340.txt
If in doubt, say M.