Re: [re-ECN] Trend report
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 29 September 2009 22:48 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 C688A28C0ED for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.295,
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 MG9Xfb-xqBYg for
<re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BDE28B23E for <re-ecn@ietf.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 6685033CCA;
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:49:18 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: re-ECN unIETF list <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20090929224918.GZ42365@verdi>
References: <F52C50AC-6510-475E-A4D1-2DA93806B4B2@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F52C50AC-6510-475E-A4D1-2DA93806B4B2@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Trend report
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:48:03 -0000
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote: > > Of the names mentioned the other day: > 6 Expect - EXPosing CongesTion > 6 CEX - Congestion EXposure or Congestion Exposure eXperiments > 8 ConEx - Congestion Exposure > 4 CEEX - congestion experience exposure > 3 CEEEX - congestion experience explicit exposure ConEx is fine with me, but I think we'd be better off with something lise "conexpo" that doesn't need upper/lower to convey a meaning. -- John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
- [re-ECN] Trend report Fred Baker
- Re: [re-ECN] Trend report John Leslie
- Re: [re-ECN] Trend report Fred Baker