Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 10 May 2010 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 730A828C20A for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.492, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 mMeKf36qLwq5 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0B93A6964 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id EE1AC33D19; Mon, 10 May 2010 13:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:43:53 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20100510174353.GI48545@verdi>
References: <4BE42A91.2040202@juniper.net> <20100507165938.GB48545@verdi> <4BE83730.1030809@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BE83730.1030809@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question
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, 10 May 2010 17:47:27 -0000

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>>> If I do have this right, who will those routers use this information?
>> 
>> I believe we consider that question out of scope; 
> 
> This is troubling. Before we invest in tool development, we really
> should know something about the intended use of the tool.

   We certainly have a lot of information on that developed by Bob
Briscoe, e.g.

http://bobbriscoe.net/projects/refb/

   I realize that not everyone agrees with Bob; so let me try to give
an independent viewpoint on use of a ConEx tool.

   Recall, the proposed charter says:
] 
] The mechanism to be developed by the CONEX WG will enable the sender
] to also relay the congestion information back into the IP layer,
] such that the total level of congestion is visible to all IP devices
] along the path.

   Thus, at any point along the path -- most likely near the sender
or near the receiver -- it will be practical to aggregate the expected
congestion for some flows and see whether this is consistent with the
contractual arrangement.

   What to do if it isn't is clearly out-of-scope.

   How to ensure better service for flows that correctly mark the
expected congestion is mostly out-of-scope. Diffserv and source-
routing through special paths known to be less congested come to
mind; but any method whatsoever is fine, and even no method at all
may prove quite workable -- that is a business decision for the ISP
involved.

   This -- and only this -- is "the intended use of the tool".

   Being who we are, we inevitably speculate about other uses such
a tool will enable. Any good tool enables uses beyond the one it
was designed for.

> I wouldn't mind letting the BoF spend some time bringing this question
> into focus before chartering a WG.

   What "better focus" would you like, Ron?

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>