Re: [conex] WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

Toby Moncaster <toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk> Sat, 31 December 2011 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 2384521F8482 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:34:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lfZSHZd+WxGk for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0255821F8480 for <conex@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:55814) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:tm444) id 1Rh0wa-0003yA-qC (Exim 4.72) (return-path <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:34:00 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:tm444) id 1Rh0wa-0001Wd-4x (Exim 4.67) (return-path <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:34:00 +0000
Received: from [128.232.235.161] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 31 Dec 2011 15:34:00 +0000
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:34:00 +0000
From: Toby Moncaster <toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.4.1112311534001.4403@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <F956135C-A5E0-45A3-8060-10A1AB9E92B5@cdt.org>
References: <4EC4690C.2060707@it.uc3m.es> <9510D26531EF184D9017DF24659BB87F3311080B41@EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> <F956135C-A5E0-45A3-8060-10A1AB9E92B5@cdt.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Sender: "T. Moncaster" <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: conex@ietf.org
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
Reply-To: toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk
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: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:34:04 -0000

On Dec 31 2011, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>Hi Phil,
>
>Thanks. I have entered these into the tracker. Just one question below --
>
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 2:29 AM, <philip.eardley@bt.com> 
> <philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:
>> S2.3 para 1, "measures" -> "is" (twice) - think this would be better as 
>> you're defining what rest-of-path & upstream congestion are
>> 
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "this."

I think all he is saying is can you change it so it reads more like a 
definition by using "is" rather than "measures". Then it would read

"rest-of-path
   congestion" (also known as "downstream congestion") is the
   level of congestion that a traffic flow is expected to experience
   between the measurement point and its final destination.  "Upstream
   congestion" is the level of congestion experienced up to the
   measurement point."

Toby

>
>Best,
>Alissa
>
>
>> Last para of S3, p10. There's a bit of a jump from the penultimate 
>> sentence about flat rate pricing to the last sentence about conex. Needs 
>> some linking
>> 
>> S4, Enabling more efficient capacity provisioning - this para is hard 
>> to follow, it twists around a bit. Also, change title to Enabling more 
>> efficient usage of capacity? I think it may be simpler to split into a 
>> use case which is user-focussed (about scavenger) and another which is 
>> operator-focussed.
>> 
>> S5 para 2 "strong incentive to tell the network .. data" -> "some 
>> incentive to deploy conex"
>> 
>> Para 3, Specifies -> proposes (so you don't have to wait for the 
>> conex-tcp draft)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Philip Eardley   
>> Research and Technology Strategy
>> 
>> This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or 
>> confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named 
>> above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, 
>> copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've 
>> received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the 
>> email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may 
>> record your emails. British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 
>> Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no: 1800000
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: conex-bounces@ietf.org 
>> [mailto:conex-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: 
>> 17 November 2011 01:53 To: 'ConEx IETF list' Subject: [conex] WGLC for 
>> draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt
>> 
>> 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 mailing list
>> conex@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>conex mailing list
>conex@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex
>