Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 10 April 2012 19:52 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B477611E8147 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6a2ffwpqZxce for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A4911E8144 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3AJpkrF000951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1334087519; i=@elandsys.com; bh=zFgpvkGEMaaEYWwC0gk3Gp38idhJMvhr5IjG2JZorEw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=4EHXZLRQIiZpGJmu6radKbPZp7lTX+gWChaxfx1g6anMRE+DQN/ROmPuiUAmYAKKN 9zZ1bcHqRBvjOHY1GVRotIjH4BynwjoIacNZ4AGfjR4fue6lWoBWJ5eTg+EF8mORXN lwNiWP59pAOtE+yIZFtNGX53G4i0uHbpk5aW/GuE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1334087519; i=@elandsys.com; bh=zFgpvkGEMaaEYWwC0gk3Gp38idhJMvhr5IjG2JZorEw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=v//1I6QEod90LzIeat2BbljrGf246QzbLHu/I+W92ftAi2jXID+MeVNvk6BvCC1eR cLVXJmPdOqovZ0wY2Gs+4+3xFOJ4wG1NrMY2Gh5mkQ28sUg8xdz7qSEL6S5cAek0l8 tDszRQ+/kY357oKa5iUNjh1X/4HL9pc5ot/CtKKg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120410113236.0ad78c48@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:50:25 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses.all@tools.ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F842DFB.2060709@isode.com>
References: <4F842DFB.2060709@isode.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:52:03 -0000
I read draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04. Here are some quick comments. As well-known application protocols such as FTP, SMTP and HTTP run over TCP, ConEx deployments shouldn't have a negative impact on them. As a stylistic nit, the definitions in Section 2.4 could have been before Section 2.2 and 2.3. "Network operators (or providers): Operator of a residential, commercial, enterprise, campus or other network. User: The contractual entity that represents an individual, household, business, or institution that uses the service of a network operator. There is no implication that the contract has to be commercial; for instance, the users of a university or enterprise network service could be students or employees who do not pay for access but may be required to comply with some form of contract or acceptable use policy. There is also no implication that every user is an end user. Where two networks form a customer-provider relationship, the term user applies to the customer network." The above from Section 2.4 defines providers and users. According to the definition of User, a provider can also be a User. It would have been easier not to get into a definition of provider (network operator) and user to keep the picture simple. In Section 3.3: "They may even penalize users of applications that employ scavenger services for the large amount of volume they send, rather than rewarding them for carefully avoiding congestion while sending it." What are "scavenger services"? "While the volume-based approach described in Comcast's Protocol- Agnostic Congestion Management System [RFC6057] aims to overcome the over/under-constraining problem by only measuring volume and triggering traffic management action during periods of high utilization, it still does not provide incentives to use scavenger transports because congestion-causing volume cannot be distinguished from volume overall." What are "scavenger transports"? "These approaches suffer from being at odds with IPSec and some application-layer encryption, and they may raise additional policy concerns." If I am not mistaken, that should be "IPsec". In Section 5.5: "Not-ConEx packets bring no such information. Therefore the network will tend to rate-limit not-ConEx packets conservatively in order to manage the unknown risk of congestion." Another way to look at this is: Therefore the network will tend to rate-limit non-TCP packets conservatively in order to manage the unknown risk of congestion. Editorial nit: "On the host side, we have already shown (Figure Figure 1)" Regards, S. Moonesamy
- [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-conex… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-c… S Moonesamy