[conex] Sec 3.1 deserves an example
Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com> Sun, 13 November 2011 16:24 UTC
Return-Path: <nanditad@google.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7EF21F8B08 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jwm-tC1xXr5c for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0DD21F8ABE for <conex@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so160137ggn.31 for <conex@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-system-of-record; bh=Ftqidt6DyqrtMaaNbbjnCSoOqsj0MEe22GlBZF6Ctsg=; b=pXy9MKlwtuvSI5QAJKj481zcok5fKKkX86NWC8S4ZMe9ERTnjZOV87i3sd4xtUSUFB 0FTW3TL0L3QE2/xHEEOg==
Received: by 10.236.156.5 with SMTP id l5mr8965624yhk.29.1321201454328; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.156.5 with SMTP id l5mr8965603yhk.29.1321201454151; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.148.3 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:24:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAB_+Fg4Lbn=nDKh=_4Va7HEj5XqcfyLiKkfO_wvNhRJFiL13PQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>, "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30426d9859f75304b1a02f4b"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: conex@ietf.org
Subject: [conex] Sec 3.1 deserves an example
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:24:14 -0000
Alissa, Bob, Richard, How about putting a simple example with numbers for the core use case described in Sec 3.1, similar to what you did in Sec. 2.2 to describe congestion volume. Nandita
- [conex] Sec 3.1 deserves an example Nandita Dukkipati