Re: [re-ECN] Two questions about CONEX

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On May 10, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:

> I think that we should charter a WG and task that WG with the
> development of exactly one document. That document captures use cases in
> which the ip-layer does something useful with congestion information.
> (This is currently out of scope for CONEX).

I think this is too narrow a scope. I think the document should describe use cases for conex. 

Consider RFC 3168 as a prototype for this document. It identifies that the network can easily and cheaply flag congestion events (far more cheaply than with IPFIX, and far more accurately), but it also identifies that the responsibility for responding to the event lies in the transport layer. If you had put this requirement on the authors of RFC 3168, they would not have been able to describe what is in fact a very useful capability. (IMHO, either RFC 3168 or a delay-based congestion avoidance procedure in the transport would be very sufficient for ledbat, for example).

I don't think you actually need a WG for this document. What you need is for individuals that have use cases to post drafts describing them. If conex wants to pull those together into a use case document, they can do that at their leisure.