IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Sun, 15 November 2009 02:30 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 666F33A68AE for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:30:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, 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 gXJWKQwmT8Ll for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5163A6359 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 6F57833C2B; Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:31:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:31:21 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com
Message-ID: <20091115023121.GC7589@verdi>
References: <200911131629.nADGTLdL016213@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC05DF8AE3@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC05DF8AE3@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter
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: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:30:50 -0000

philip.eardley@bt.com <philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:
>  
> John, you made a comment that you see the transport of congestion
> information from destination to sender as being not the main thing
> or out of scope.

   Yes.

> what were you thinking the main transport work item should be?
> (i'm guessing it's a congestion control algorithm - which i think
> is out of scope)

   I'm not sure I think there should be _any_ "transport work item"
defined for a CONEX WG.

   In practice, of course, we'll have to design some transport
implementations to test CONEX; but I don't see why we should place
prior restrictions on such implementations.

   (For one example, I think a totally non-smoothed reaction to
ECN congestion-experienced marks will prove sub-optimal.)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email