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

[Matt Mathis <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:33 AM, David Wagner <
[e-mail]> 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.

Thanks,
--MM--
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.