D. Cheriton and D. Skeen, \Comments on the Responses by Birman, van Renesse and Cooper," Operating Systems Review, p. 32, Jan. 1994. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
ITP: An Image Transport Protocol for the Internet - Raman, Balakrishnan, Srinivasan (2000) (2 citations) (Correct)
....Here, the receiver prioritizes requests for data items that cannot be concealed using interpolation. The results are shown in Figure 11. VI. Related work The so called CATOCS debate on ordering semantics in the context of multicast protocols drew much attention a few years ago [24] 25] [26]. Cheriton and Skeen argued 8 t 1 = 2s t 2 = 10s t 3 = 16s Fig. 9. Snapshots of the displayed image with a TCP like transport ( rst row) with ITP (second row) and with ITP enhanced with error concealment (last row) at 10 loss rate. The entire transfer of the 184 KB image takes 16:57s to ....
D. Cheriton and D. Skeen, \Comments on the Responses by Birman, van Renesse and Cooper," Operating Systems Review, p. 32, Jan. 1994.
An Image Transport Protocol for the Internet - Raman, Balakrishnan, Srinivasan (2000) (2 citations) (Correct)
....concealed using interpolation. In summary, we find that the rate of increase in PSNR with time is significantly higher for ITP compared to TCPlike delivery. 6 Related work The so called CATOCS debate on ordering semantics in the context of multicast protocols drew much attention a few years ago [6, 5, 7]. Cheriton and Skeen argued that ordering semantics are better handled by the application and that 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 PSNR (dB) Time (ms) PSNR at 20 loss rate ITP ITP scheduling Figure 12. When receiver request scheduling takes into ....
CHERITON, D., AND SKEEN, D. Comments on the Responses by Birman, van Renesse and Cooper. Operating Systems Review (Jan. 1994), 32.
An Image Transport Protocol for the Internet - Raman, Balakrishnan, Srinivasan (2000) (2 citations) (Correct)
....receiver scheduling. Here, the receiver prioritizes requests for data items that cannot be concealed using interpolation. The results are shown in Figure 10. 6 Related work The so called CATOCS debate on ordering semantics in the context of multicast protocols drew much attention a few years ago [5, 4, 6]. Cheriton and Skeen argued that ordering semantics are better handled by the application and that enforcing an arbitrarily chosen ordering rule results in performance problems [5] In our work, we reinforce this approach to protocol design and refrain from imposing a particular ordering semantics ....
D. Cheriton and D. Skeen. Comments on the Responses by Birman, van Renesse and Cooper. Operating Systems Review, page 32, Jan. 1994.
A Framework for Interactive Multicast Data Transport in the Internet - Raman (2000) (Correct)
....where the data stream consists of a stream of small updates that must be delivered in a timely fashion to the receivers. 2. 5 Delivery Semantics in Transport Protocols The so called CATOCS debate on ordering semantics in the context of multicast protocols drew much attention a few years ago [19, 11, 20]. Cheriton and Skeen argued that ordering semantics are better handled by the application and that enforcing an arbitrarily chosen ordering rule results in performance problems [19] In our work, we reinforce this approach to protocol design and refrain from imposing a particular ordering ....
D. Cheriton and D. Skeen. Comments on the Responses by Birman, van Renesse and Cooper. Operating Systems Review, page 32, January 1994.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC