Re: [p2pi] [tana] [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter

Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net> Wed, 22 October 2008 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D293A6AD3; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448123A6AD3; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIGLAt9daM0G; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC683A6A2E; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.228.6]) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:34 PDT
Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emsmtp01.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:49 -0700
Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:49 -0700
Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailwf1.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:28:48 -0400
Received: from 172.23.1.75 ([172.23.1.75]) by proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:28:47 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.12.0.080729
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:43 -0700
From: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net>
To: Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>, <tana@ietf.org>, <p2pi@ietf.org>, <tsv-area@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C524324B.132CE%rpenno@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [tana] [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter
Thread-Index: Ack0IDFzKICC1YdMcEeFx9GSPrY0Qw==
In-Reply-To: <1224662013.3728.44.camel@pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2008 08:28:48.0148 (UTC) FILETIME=[3484B540:01C93420]
Subject: Re: [p2pi] [tana] [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

I'm not sure I'm reading the semantics of "Less than Best Effort" like other
folks. 

'Best Effort' has a well-defined semantics in the scope of Diffserv,
including a code point of its own. Less than best effort seems we are
defining a code point for such applications. Are we? The charter talks about
'end-to-end Diffserv'.

End-to-end diffserv is a challenge on its own given ISP policies, etc.

If the link is not saturated, are such application also treated as 'less
than best effort' by still being DSCP marked and treated differently within
routers? 

I would like if possible to decouple the 'less than best effort', as in
diffserv, from the algorithm per se.

Besides, there are ISPs that are worried about the effect that P2P have on
other applications when the link is saturated, but otherwise they do not
care. P2P would be treated like best effort in non-saturated situations (a
more ECN type approach).

Thanks,

Reinaldo


On 10/22/08 12:53 AM, "Michael Welzl" <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> wrote:

> I agree 100%, about both - charter and LETBET (which is my
> favorite name proposal)
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:10 +0300, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I also think the charter is very well scoped.
>> 
>> However I'd like to see the *multiple connections* work item elaborated
>> and explained a little bit more!
>> 
>> about the name proposal both "LETBET (LEss Than Best Effort Transport)" and
>> "Scavenger Network Congestion Protocols" sound good proposal to me.
>> 
>> /sal
>> 
>> Michael Menth wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I also find the charter good and like Ingemar's name proposal "LETBET
>>> (LEss Than Best Effort Transport)"
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> Even though I understand that it is better to focus on the charter than
>>>> in the name I too beleieve that TANA does not say much.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that somewhere along the track and also in the charter the
>>>> term "less than best effort transmission" was/is mentioned
>>>> A possible name would then be
>>>> LETBET (LEss Than Best Effort Transport)
>>>> 
>>>> That said... there are a whole bunch of WG names out there that at first
>>>> glance does not say anything about the group.
>>>> The charter looks OK from my perspective.
>>>> 
>>>> /Ingemar
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Ted Faber
>>>>> Sent: den 21 oktober 2008 18:51
>>>>> To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]
>>>>> Cc: TSV Area; tana@ietf.org; p2pi@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [tsv-area] TANA proposed charter
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:12:10AM -0500, Eddy, Wesley M.
>>>>> (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>> But if nobody else has a problem with the TANA name, I'll keep my
>>>>>> mouth shut so we don't waste time and energy.  There are
>>>>> bigger fish to fry!
>>>>> 
>>>>> It should change.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I care about congestion control and nothing in the expansion of TANA
>>>>> indicated it was about congestion (to me).
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ted Faber
>>>>> http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP:
>>>>> http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
>>>>> Unexpected attachment on this mail? See
>>>>> http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
>>>>> 
>>>>>     
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tana mailing list
>>>> tana@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tana
>>>>   
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tana mailing list
>> tana@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tana
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tana mailing list
> tana@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tana

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi