Re: [aqm] Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols?

This seems like valuable work.  One question is, can we put in scope
notification that losses are NOT due to congestion?

Willing to comment and review, at least.

On 5 November 2013 09:03, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item in the
> IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need visibility of
> interest.
> Even better, if you're willing to read / comment / review / implement
>
> Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that
> Encapsulate IP
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines>
>
> Abstract
>
>    The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
>    notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that
>    encapsulates IP.  The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
>    propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP.  Then the
>    IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
>    congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
>    transport layer (L4).  Following these guidelines should assure
>    interworking between new lower layer congestion notification
>    mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies.
>
>
> [Cross-posting tsvwg & aqm, just in case]
>
>
> Bob Briscoe,
> also for co-authors Pat Thaler and John Kaippallimalil
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>

-- 
Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewmcgr@google.com | +61 4 8143 7128