Re: [aqm] adoption call: draft-welzl-ecn-benefits

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> This draft has been discussed a bit here and in TSVWG:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-01
>
> As I understand, the IAB has also discussed it a bit, and would
> be happy if this was something that an IETF working group
> published.  I believe the TSVWG chairs also discussed this and
> would be fine if the AQM working group adopted it.
>
> That said, there have only been a small number of mail list
> comments here about it, and we (unfortunately) didn't devote
> much of any meeting time to it in Toronto.
>
> So, *please* let us know your thoughts on this in the next few
> weeks.  I believe we would try to complete it relatively quickly
> (e.g. 6 months) as an Informational RFC, assuming there is
> consensus and AD approval to add the milestone.
>
> I personally would like to see some stronger support for it from
> this working group in order to feel good about adopting it, though
> I think it is correct and may be "motherhood and apple pie" to
> many of us.

I don't share the relentless optimism of this document, and would
like it - or a competing document - to go into the potential negatives.

examples of this include the TOS washing problem bob alluded to
in one of the tsvwg meetings (the monday one), the impact on
competing flows, the problem of unresponsive agents or other
misuse,  the deprecation (?) of the nonce mechanism, and how to
properly switch between marking and dropping in an aqm.

There are also the possibilities in new uses for ecn (for example, in
the original rmcat nada proposal), in usages on local links in routing
protocols, and in new protocols such as quic, etc.

> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article