Re: [re-ECN] preliminary draft of problem statement- authors wanted

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toby,

Sorry, yes, you're absolutly right. I felt wrong with this use of upstream and 
downstream as well. I actually checked it with the previous section and 
somehow thought it would be this way... 
But swapping down und up shouldn't be such a big problem :-)

Mirja


On Thursday 24 September 2009 16:43:02 [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
>
> I am in the process of integrating this into the document and expanding it.
> I have decided to insert some extra bits and am actually completely
> re-working the whole of section 5 at the same time.
>
> One thing needs to be clarified (as I have noticed it with other people as
> well): you seem to have got your terminology back to front. We refer to
> upstream congestion as being the congestion between a given point and the
> origin (source) of the traffic. The downstream congestion is between that
> point and the destination (sink) of the traffic. In other words downstream
> is in the direction of flow and upstream is against the flow. This is based
> on the conventional usage in English when referring to real flows e.g.
> water in rivers...
>
> Toby
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 24 September 2009 12:28
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Moncaster,T,Toby,DER3 R
> > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] preliminary draft of problem statement- authors
> > wanted
> >
> > Hi Toby,
> >
> > I've tried to fill section 5.3 (see below). I've moved some points form
> > 4.
> > (Requirements for a Solution) into this section. So I'm not sure if 4.
> > is
> > still an own section. Might be enough to include on paragraph into the
> > introduction.
> > I hope this input helps somehow as a starting point for 5.3 or if this
> > is not
> > what was meant to be there it may be included in some other part on the
> > document.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > 5.3.  Re-feedback as a potential solution
> >
> > To eliminate the asymmetry of information between end-points and
> > network
> > components it can be supposed to re-insert the congestion feedback
> > signaled
> > by the receiver into the Internet. Thereby an approximation about how
> > much
> > congestion needs to be expected over the whole path is given. Having
> > this
> > information within the network the congestion policing can be enforced
> > before
> > other users get discriminated by "heavy users".
> >
> > Considering the ECN information as the downstream congestion and the
> > re-feedbacked congestion information as whole-path congestion, the
> > upstream
> > congestion (or rest-path congestion) can easily be achieved by
> > subtracting
> > one form the other. That enables network components to be responsive to
> > congestion instead just rely on the end-hosts.
> >
> > The upstream congestion reveals valuable information at ISP borders. On
> > the
> > one hand the amount of congestion that will be pushed into a domain can
> > become part of an inter-domain agreement. One the other hand the amount
> > of
> > the expected upstream congestion might lead to switch to a less
> > congestion
> > network-domain (what might boost the competition to provide a more
> > reliable
> > network).
> >
> > Summing up, the exposure of downstream, upstream and the whole-path
> > congestion
> > can be achieved by re-insertion of congestion notifications and will
> > establish an information symmetry between users and network providers.
> > This
> > will open a door for incremental deployment and an evolution to new
> > congestion responses which are not bounded anymore to an "universal
> > rate
> > adaptable policy" as the information equilibrium implicit controls a
> > fair
> > capacity sharing.
> >
> > On Thursday 24 September 2009 10:04:03 [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the useful feedback. Clearly this document is still in its
> > > very early stages. I will try and produce a new version by end of the
> > > week  which will hopefully address some of your comments.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile I am still keen to get volunteers willing to contribute
> >
> > chunks
> >
> > > of text for any of the sections.
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michael Menth [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: 23 September 2009 22:41
> > > > To: Moncaster,T,Toby,DER3 R
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] preliminary draft of problem statement-
> >
> > authors
> >
> > > > wanted
> > > >
> > > > Hi Toby,
> > > >
> > > > I read the whole document and still it is unclear in many parts. I
> > > > marked them in the attached doc-file. I hope this helps to improve
> >
> > its
> >
> > > > clarity.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > >     Michael
> > > >
> > > > [e-mail] schrieb:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > As promised here is a new draft of the problem statement with a
> >
> > bit
> >
> > > > more meat on the bones. There is still an awful lot of work to be
> >
> > done
> >
> > > > on this and not too much time to do it. Our absolute deadline to
> >
> > get
> >
> > > > something in is October 19th - only just over 3 weeks away...
> > > >
> > > > > As before I would welcome any contributions of text or general
> > > >
> > > > comments. When I have a bit more time I will do proper xml2rfc
> >
> > author
> >
> > > > entries for everyone that has contributed... For political reasons
> >
> > I
> >
> > > > want it to be clear that this is a document that has been worked on
> > > > from people across the whole range of the IETF community.
> > > >
> > > > > Toby
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> >
> > > > > Toby Moncaster, Senior Researcher, Network Infrastructure
> >
> > Practise
> >
> > > > > B54/70 Adastral Park, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  [phone]
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > re-ECN mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
> > > > University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland,
> >
> > D-
> >
> > > > 97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
> > > > phone: [phone] (new), fax: [phone]
> > > > mailto:[e-mail]
> > > > http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > re-ECN mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
> > Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
> > University of Stuttgart, Germany
> > Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart
> >
> > web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
> > email: [e-mail]
> > tel: [phone]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart

web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
email: [e-mail]
tel: [phone]
-------------------------------------------------------------------