Re: [conex] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.txt

[David Wagner <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, 

thanks for your comment, I will take it into account. Less might be better in the abstract, but I'd like to have the audit mentioned already here. 

What don't you like in the motivation for ConEx auditing? 
I'd also like to hear your comments on the ConEx crediting alternatives themselves. Or your solution. 

David 

On Friday 12 July 2013 12:44:17 John Leslie wrote:
> David Wagner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > we submitted a new draft describing potential definitions of credit
> > and credit handling in the audit. 
> 
>    This strikes me as a good idea -- there has been confusion about that,
> and having a separate draft will probably aid discussion here.
> 
> > Abstract:
> 
>    Let me comment on the Abstract before I read the whole draft...
> 
> >  Congestion Exposure (ConEx) is a mechanism by which senders inform
> >  the network about the congestion encountered by previous packets on
> >  the same flow.
> 
>    This indeed is the way we define ConEx.
> 
> >  In order to make ConEx information useful, reliable auditing is
> >  necessary to provide a strong incentive to declare ConEx
> >  information honestly.
> 
>    I personally disagree with this statement. (I'd be happy to go into
> why I disagree; but I don't think this is the right email to do so.)
> 
> >  However, there is always a delay between congestion events and
> >  the respective ConEx signal at the audit. To avoid state and
> >  complex Round-Trip Time estimations at the audit, in
> >  [draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech] it is proposed to use credit signals
> >  sent in advance to cover potential congestion in the next feedback
> >  delay duration.  Unfortunately, introducing credit does not provide
> >  incentives to honestly report congestion.  This document lists
> >  potential issues regarding the proposed crediting and discusses
> >  potential solutions approaches to interpret and handle credits at the
> >  audit.
> 
>    That text belongs in an Introduction.
> 
>    IMHO, the Abstract should limit itself to something like:
> " 
> " The ConEx Working Group is designing an audit mechanism to test
> " whether congestion encountered is being honestly reported by the
> " sender. This mechanism involves "credit" markings for possible
> " congestion not yet encountered. This document discusses issues
> " regarding such credit markings.
> 
> --
> John Leslie <[e-mail]>
>