Re: [conex] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.txt

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Fri, 12 July 2013 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 44B4521F9DB2 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 5PbHZMx1ewlZ for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F0D21F9DB0 for <conex@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id D5CA833C20; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:44:17 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: David Wagner <david.wagner@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Message-ID: <20130712104417.GO18393@verdi>
References: <201307121201.58082.david.wagner@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201307121201.58082.david.wagner@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: conex@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [conex] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:44:23 -0000

David Wagner <david.wagner@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> 
> we submitted a new draft describing potential definitions of credit
> and credit handling in the audit. 

   This strikes me as a good idea -- there has been confusion about that,
and having a separate draft will probably aid discussion here.

> Abstract:

   Let me comment on the Abstract before I read the whole draft...

>  Congestion Exposure (ConEx) is a mechanism by which senders inform
>  the network about the congestion encountered by previous packets on
>  the same flow.

   This indeed is the way we define ConEx.

>  In order to make ConEx information useful, reliable auditing is
>  necessary to provide a strong incentive to declare ConEx
>  information honestly.

   I personally disagree with this statement. (I'd be happy to go into
why I disagree; but I don't think this is the right email to do so.)

>  However, there is always a delay between congestion events and
>  the respective ConEx signal at the audit. To avoid state and
>  complex Round-Trip Time estimations at the audit, in
>  [draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech] it is proposed to use credit signals
>  sent in advance to cover potential congestion in the next feedback
>  delay duration.  Unfortunately, introducing credit does not provide
>  incentives to honestly report congestion.  This document lists
>  potential issues regarding the proposed crediting and discusses
>  potential solutions approaches to interpret and handle credits at the
>  audit.

   That text belongs in an Introduction.

   IMHO, the Abstract should limit itself to something like:
" 
" The ConEx Working Group is designing an audit mechanism to test
" whether congestion encountered is being honestly reported by the
" sender. This mechanism involves "credit" markings for possible
" congestion not yet encountered. This document discusses issues
" regarding such credit markings.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>