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

[Piers O'Hanlon <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

I took a brief look at the draft and it's clearly useful work.

One thing that could do with clarification in the Introduction is that ECN - by itself - doesn't necessarily lead to low loss and delay - it should be made clear that it reflects the marking approach of the underlying scheme/AQM.

Piers

On 4 Nov 2013, at 22:03, Bob Briscoe 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