Re: [re-ECN] Charter Question

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 01:43:53PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
> 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.


	er... you have already proposed a use for the congestion information,
	i.e. aggregate flows... and then, its no longer the original sender/recevier,
	is the node that has chosen to mediate/aggregate and the source/target (or
	other middle-box that has chosen to aggregate/deaggregate based on local
	policy)

	Just saying.

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


	me thinks this vastly exceeds Bobs description - its moved past 
	a protocol change; "relay congesstion information back into the IP layer"
	to a specific implementation choice.

>    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.

	amen - but lets get the tool working before we try and use it for
	a given purpose.

> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn