Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt
Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Tue, 10 January 2012 13:36 UTC
Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
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 8365621F8629 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:36:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 0HYsma7zSgN9 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E514921F8627 for <conex@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C30A633B1; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:36:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from vpn-2-cl177 (vpn-2-cl177 [10.41.21.177]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABA959A8A; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:36:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
To: conex@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:36:36 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316)
References: <4EC4690C.2060707@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4EC4690C.2060707@it.uc3m.es>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201201101436.37128.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Cc: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:36:41 -0000
Hi, sorry, I'm very late with my comments on the doc mentioned below but there are only a few comments: The example in "2.2. Congestion-Volume" says the loss propability is 0,2% and the congestion volume 2MB. Maybe it's helpful to says more explicit that 1) the loss propability is the measurement of the network congestion (level) and 2) this is in percent, while the congestion volume depends on the actual amount of traffic send by the user and thus is in MB. Section '2.3. Rest-of-Path Congestion' talks only about ECN as a congestion signal and ignores loss. In "2.4. Definitions" in the definition of congestion-volume the following sentence does not seem to be entirely correct or I don't get it right: "data volume multiplied by the congestion each packet of the volume experienced" -> maybe "... multiplied by the mean congestion during the measurement time period..."? Upstream congestion: s/by a traffic flow thus far/by a traffic flow so far/ ?? In 3.1. Use Case Description "Those users would be expected to react in the typical way to drops, backing off (assuming use of standard TCP), and thereby lowering their congestion-volumes back within the quota limits." If those users would use standard TCP, they would have reacted already on the original congestion signal (before a policer can drop anything based on ConEx). I though the point is that this mechanism is helpful when a users does e.g. not back off on congestion. And additionally I believe there is a second important point: a (misbehaving) user can be policed at the ingress before the traffic will disturb other users further. The last paragraph in "3.3. Comparison with Existing Approaches" is not entirely clear to me. This sounds like ConEx proposes to use a per-congestion pricing. Do we need to talk about flat-rate pricing at all? Mirja On Thursday 17 November 2011 02:53:16 marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt. > (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt) > > Please review the document and send comments before the 5th december. > > Thanks, marcelo > _______________________________________________ > conex mailing list > conex@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex
- [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-0… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-us… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-us… philip.eardley
- Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-us… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-us… Toby Moncaster
- Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-us… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-us… Mirja Kühlewind