Re: [re-ECN] Viability issue #1

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 1/ This is about network flows, not applications or services, so it will 
>    serve future network uses (application types).

   The idea is right -- but it's hard to comprehend.

   Rather than "about", I'd say CONEX distinguishes "congestion" within
the forwarding networks from application or services congestion.

   We probably also need to introduce the point that at every forwarding
step, there's an indication of how much "congestion" is expected from
the flow of packets heading toward that path (one RTT ago).

   And rather than some vague "future network uses", we should perhaps
mention delay-sensitive traffic (which now isn't served at all well).

   (I wonder if we should start another thread on what "congestion"
means: granted, CONEX is pretty agnostic on the actual meaning, but it
feels to me as if folks need to escape the "congestion==packet-drop"
mindset in order to understand how CONEX can help without giving
"unfair" advantage to marked traffic.)

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>