IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] FW: ConEx BoF announcement text

<toby.moncaster@bt.com> Mon, 26 October 2009 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044B73A6B4E for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 DCthNnT635M8 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.smtp.bt.com (smtp2.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.150]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA9C3A68F5 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.61]) by smtp2.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:44:01 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:43:56 -0000
Message-ID: <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70DAA285E@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC063639E0@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [re-ECN] FW: ConEx BoF announcement text
Thread-Index: AcpWVkX3GKDcz4BXRru8PmI5Cgs0PgACp6HgAACSfWA=
References: <200910261606.n9QG6IJA003794@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC063639E0@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
To: <philip.eardley@bt.com>, <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>, <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2009 17:44:01.0072 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6FF4300:01CA5663]
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] FW: ConEx BoF announcement text
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:43:50 -0000

{taking account of John Leslie's meta-comment about snipping text! Which
must especially be important to anyone getting the digest...}

<snip>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of philip.eardley@bt.com
> Sent: 26 October 2009 17:23
> To: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R; leslie@thinkingcat.com
> Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] FW: ConEx BoF announcement text
> 
> I found bob's new version much better, especially the more positive
> slant of the 'proposed para 4'.
> 
> My only 2 minor comments:-
> << However, TCP doesn't account for how much an application occupies
> capacity over time.>>
> I suggest tweaking this to say "how much a user or applications
> occupies"

That seems a little clumsy to me. I agree that we need to move back to
the idea that it is the user not the application that should be
accountable. How about 

"However, TCP fails to account for how a particular application occupies
capacity over time or which applications a user chooses to run."


> 
> <<These ad-hoc practices can stifle innovation at the transport and
> application layer ... This in turn has increasingly led to calls for
> government regulations>>
> I suggest tweaking this to say "These ad-hoc practices can stifle
> innovation at the transport and application layer, and have led to
> calls
> for government regulations [refs]".

Phil's version is much clearer... 

</snip>

Toby

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email