Re: [conex] Crediting [was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-06]

Matt Mathis <> Tue, 27 August 2013 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078AD11E81F8 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqZp8RHiCh+x for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1DC11E81EC for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k18so600801qcv.41 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rthrX2t+EOnUAJjzixAVLN2sfVP/uXUUhelTPQ5UxQU=; b=SKj1Rf9boW+x6BnU4t9TkA1WQXqfe6TUwaRYHq+Gzi3cacm/OMj162b1mctxAKrWDj 2ruWmw5LWk7DqjjEvnftx+pbOEyxUXdA19+trhHOb/ivz0A20nT4RtLxH7AkBwb7OEyu gkMY5Vd5fukdLc8kbnZITvKN8g6WGO2Zeo9gHzuJlyw2sG5xPNhlC7/SnTvuEayT/+kf l1A37tlTImRLEbsqc9UjLJsOoakJ2pQEHnuy9UTn7ZuqRqcD/w3lsMerVEc18P7LMq+t M9Ky8MeXAGYySajWl5ytdaJqPLomH7lxKexqCBgHDAGawBxvMGp39KsTh0EJQfewCdFd +JJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rthrX2t+EOnUAJjzixAVLN2sfVP/uXUUhelTPQ5UxQU=; b=jaqYqKNcsayZR+TkyR3fdoMhM5T2JheoanU7Ut23hQKqZAiQx5Dgq3/BeSHAKX8XBq f2l8XHSmVnN1l7754jc+vf8GB1uqK0v8waPDi9uieEHWpuIVZ/swWS9Pgxht0+mA0Cnp nlOsH0X8ENR+uzH7eZB8eq9sntXS3gTQA7fp1JHIDl4sLa1mjIppgikhqkcej80i1TOD 1TAQioDRsEr1gkykmbD7s20ntaX7y/Afv2JxgxBGH8tqRXOpav48R4vU4VuvxsUGo1hB kZKus4eFNdXYN2ZG12r3RFsN5cQHam/XDJjdkMJ4FZH9i5bM4XxHSsgNWT657VBUUI/6 i80g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkC8lLOU8mwcCEP/kmrGucoB8YzLgz3y3zijQ162xFOYP65jicQ3lg4qt+Y1oE1c8i8hrawsss2mvevPYGyEkvCOI1FgCdY21D0dXQ8Aqi0qB/Rr8umHGlIqI3EWReh5i3ap708m90kPf21hSpNaPJ3oCDaIS8AhlYXBcI2gY1tthe9T9DfCMNlECIxQQNa0/MUFdnN
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id m7mr26084111qek.60.1377636386762; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:46:26 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Matt Mathis <>
To: David Wagner <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc156476958104e4f3f74f"
Cc: ConEx IETF list <>
Subject: Re: [conex] Crediting [was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-06]
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:46:28 -0000

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:33 AM, David Wagner <> wrote:

> the main point is that an audit implementing only the basic and simple
> criteria can be deceived for any definition of credit:
> a sender sending every packet with a credit mark will not be penalized for
> any of the discussed credit schemes.

There is something fundamental missing from this conversation.  The above
scenario is tantamount to exaggerating your resource consumption.  It is
not necessarily a bug that the audit function overlooks errors with this
sign.   Note that this signal is also being used by some policy device
which has its own (but unspecified) response to consuming resources.

Even though the policy device is not fully specified, I would predict that
it is not to your advantage to claim to use more resources than you
actually do.

The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.