Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-06.txt

Ingemar Johansson S <> Wed, 21 November 2012 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025EB21F8651 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:28:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VLxCexBGlClf for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2B521F84B5 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:28:03 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f1e6d000002d2c-89-50acd6e2d9b6
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FA.99.11564.2E6DCA05; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:28:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:27:58 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:27:49 +0100
From: Ingemar Johansson S <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNx1njVg+tGahsb06Ne07rnDfUVZf0Q9Zw
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:27:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6ja2sCDB6skbY4dO0nowOjx5Il P5kCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Ml5t2MFa8Ie3Yv+l16wNjEu4uxg5OSQETCTW98xihbDFJC7c W8/WxcjFISRwklHi8pXljBDOTkaJ48s7oDJLGCV2XOsEa2ETsJFYeeg7I4gtIqAqsfzlXTCb WcBK4svxv8wgtrCAs8T2k2dYIWpcJKbe/AdkcwDZRhIfTtuBhFmAWqdOessIEuYV8Ja4cSkD YtVpRom/S3rBWjkFoiW2zGlkB7EZBWQl7n+/xwKxSlzi1pP5TBAfCEgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B/U Z4oSH1/tgzpNR2LB7k9sELa2xLKFr8HqeQUEJU7OfAI2U0hAV2L9jqvsExglZiFZMQtJ+ywk 7bOQtC9gZFnFyJ6bmJmTXm64iREYQQe3/NbdwXjqnMghRmkOFiVxXq6k/f5CAumJJanZqakF qUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGCNPz/e2zJVpco+SWyPLIXz6z5U/rPlqR5h0XQ9v+OOkZcniNXWm U+WfySES3zOMdJ5/vnDtyDfewh/c8/eKK/K0+9g0MPpy/dj8diPnijyGtQUXSrv2BPTrTA6b 0+01QXjjXA7ZuR8OrP117l7BMpcalWLP1PzEJROFBP5sX6gTL8G956ZFkxJLcUaioRZzUXEi AKr+OTpuAgAA
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <>
Subject: Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:28:05 -0000


First time I had time to read carefully through this document
The document is comprehensible and I don't find any serious issues with it.

One comment though on page 5, 3rd para.
" the flow-state required for audit creates itself as it detects new flows.  Therefore a flow will not fail if it is re-
   routed away from the audit box currently holding its flow-state. "

If I map ConEx to a 3GPP LTE use case, the audit functions are best placed in the eNodeB. When a new (long lived) flow is created it is preferably preloaded with credit marks which are stored in the auditor in the eNodeB which the terminal is "connected" to. When the terminal hands over to another eNodeB the credit marks will be lost.  This means that the ConEx markings will in this case be at least one RTT behind with a higher risk of false positives in the auditor in the new eNodeB
To avoid this the credit marks would need to be forwarded to the new eNodeB via e.g the X2 interface.

So my question is, is it needed to add a statement that mentions this ?


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
Sent: 23 October 2012 06:54
To: 'ConEx IETF list'
Subject: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-06.txt


This note issues the WGLC for


Please reivew the document and provide comments. The WGLC will close on the 20th of november.

For you convenience, the draft can be found at:

Regards, marcelo

conex mailing list