Re: [re-ECN] FW: New Version Notification for draft-moncaster-congestion-exposure-problem-03

Are we clear about the language of the announcement? I'm seeing messages 
on non-IETF mailing lists about the BOF already.

RB

toby.moncaster@bt.com wrote:
> A new version. The main changes are:
> * an altered abstract (trying to roughly follow suggestions from John Leslie but with modification - note this still needs work!)
> * An improved security considerations section
> * The start of a proper Use Cases section
>
> I now I still have comments from a couple of people that will need addressing but I needed to get this submitted before the deadline...
>
> Toby
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] 
> Sent: 26 October 2009 19:09
> To: Moncaster,T,Toby,DEE1 R
> Cc: Krug,AL,Louise,DES3 R; menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de; j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk; sblake@extremenetworks.com; richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-moncaster-congestion-exposure-problem-03 
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-moncaster-congestion-exposure-problem-03.txt has been successfuly submitted by T Moncaster and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Filename:	 draft-moncaster-congestion-exposure-problem
> Revision:	 03
> Title:		 The Need for Congestion Exposure in the Internet
> Creation_date:	 2009-10-26
> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 22
>
> Abstract:
> Today's Internet is a product of its history.  TCP is the main
> transport protocol responsible for sharing out bandwidth and
> preventing a recurrence of congestion collapse while packet drop is
> the primary signal of congestion at bottlenecks.  Since packet drop
> (and increased delay) impacts all their customers negatively, network
> operators would like to be able to distinguish between overly
> aggressive congestion control and a confluence of many low-bandwidth,
> low-impact flows.  But they are unable to see the actual congestion
> signal and thus, they have to implement bandwidth and/or usage limits
> based on the only information they can see or measure (the contents
> of the packet headers and the rate of the traffic).  Such measures
> don't solve the packet-drop problems effectively and are leading to
> calls for government regulation (which also won't solve the problem).
>
> We propose congestion exposure as a possible solution.  This allows
> packets to carry an accurate prediction of the congestion they expect
> to cause downstream thus allowing it to be visible to ISPs and
> network operators.  This memo sets out the motivations for congestion
> exposure and introduces a strawman protocol designed to achieve
> congestion exposure.
>                                                                                   
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>   

-- 
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC