[conex] Remaining ConEx I-Ds

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Wed, 19 March 2014 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F4A1A069A for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mqGpiz3R6pPf for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D832F1A06A9 for <conex@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ( by EVMHR67-UKRD.bt.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:46:23 +0000
Received: from EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net ( by EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:46:21 +0000
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ( by EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:46:16 +0000
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s2J9kE0x010476; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:46:14 GMT
Message-ID: <201403190946.s2J9kE0x010476@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:46:14 +0000
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH56bmCZkcPr+mRauDbX8vTtN7OwYydhm5qYwyaQrz4tyubH=g@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CAH56bmCZkcPr+mRauDbX8vTtN7OwYydhm5qYwyaQrz4tyubH=g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_50083949==.ALT"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/9i_uJVaZod-PD781keoirH4fF8U
Cc: ConEx IETF list <conex@ietf.org>
Subject: [conex] Remaining ConEx I-Ds
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:46:40 -0000


At 21:39 13/03/2014, Matt Mathis wrote:
>I am concerned that there are too many 
>non-progressing IDs as references. Â  These are 
>not so much of an issue at this stage, but we 
>need a plan for the RFC editor: which are we 
>going to leave at "work in progress" and which 
>can be replaced by other references?

[Matt, actually, all except the "historic" re-ECN 
ones have had recent material updates.]

What's the plan for each category below in the 
timescale of RFC-Edits on abstract-mech?
1) Ready: presumably you will WG last-call the 
ConEx ones? Or has that already happened?
2) "Historic" (re-ECN): Do we leave these to 
expire, or get them issued as historic RFCs?
3) Individual: Do you plan to make these WG items?
    (Small groups are actively working on 
implementing and evaluating policing and audit.)

I count the following I-D refs in abstract-mech:

1) Ready for WG last call (either ConEx or TCPM):
* ietf-conex-destopt
* ietf-tcp-modifications
* ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs

2) "Historic" re-ECN drafts
* briscoe-conex-re-ecn-motiv
* briscoe-conex-re-ecn-tcp

3) Individual drafts satisfying ConEx charter items:
* briscoe-conex-policing
* draft-wagner-conex-audit (mistakenly not 
referenced from abstract-mech, but we'll add during RFC-Editor phase)

The other category in the charter (cited in 
concepts-uses, not abstract-mech) is
4) Use cases


>The best way to predict the future is to create it. Â - Alan Kay
>Privacy matters! Â We know from recent events 
>that people are using our services to speak in 
>defiance of unjust governments. Â  We treat 
>privacy and security as matters of life and 
>death, because for some users, they are.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: <<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:31 PM
>Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-11.txt
>To: Matt Mathis 
>"Bob J. Briscoe" <<mailto:bob.briscoe@bt.com>bob.briscoe@bt.com>
>A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-11.txt
>has been successfully submitted by Matt Mathis and posted to the
>IETF repository.
>Name: Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech
>Revision: Â  Â  Â  11
>Title: Â  Â  Â  Â  Â Congestion Exposure (ConEx) 
>Concepts and Abstract Mechanism
>Document date: Â 2014-03-13
>Group: Â  Â  Â  Â  Â conex
>Pages: Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 29
>URL: Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 
>Â  Â  Â  Â 
>Â  Â  Â 
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 
>Â  Â This document describes an abstract mechanism by which senders inform
>Â  Â the network about the congestion encountered by packets earlier in
>Â  Â the same flow. Â Today, network elements at any layer may signal
>Â  Â congestion to the receiver by dropping packets or by ECN markings,
>Â  Â and the receiver passes this information back to the sender in
>Â  Â transport-layer feedback. Â The mechanism described here enables the
>Â  Â sender to also relay this congestion information back into the
>Â  Â network in-band at the IP layer, such that the total amount of
>Â  Â congestion from all elements on the path is revealed to all IP
>Â  Â elements along the path, where it could, for example, be used to
>Â  Â provide input to traffic management. Â This mechanism is called
>Â  Â congestion exposure or ConEx. Â The companion document "ConEx Concepts
>Â  Â and Use Cases" provides the entry-point to the set of ConEx
>Â  Â documentation.
>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>until the htmlized version and diff are 
>available at <http://tools.ietf.org>tools.ietf.org.
>The IETF Secretariat

Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT