Re: [re-ECN] Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF in Hiroshima?

[João Taveira Araújo <[e-mail]>]

Agree with most of Toby's comments, and would add that the last 3 
paragraphs seem too long to basically convey:

- LEDBAT shows that there is a need for more flexible CC paradigms than 
TCP-friendliness
- LEDBAT itself is only a solution to a subset of problems, and we need 
an overarching framework to:
  - expose congestion so operators are no longer prone to information 
assymetry.
  - allow different CC algorithms to evolve independently within less 
restrictive design space than TCP-friendliness.

Joao

[e-mail] wrote:
> Immediate top-level comment - drop the re-ECN from the title. This is a
> BoF where we are trying to get the IETF to agree there is a need to
> introduce congestion transparency. Re-ECN is a specific protocol for
> doing that but there may be others so we shouldn't put it in the title.
>
> I really fear the overall order of things is wrong as well. The bulk of
> the first 3 paragraphs is just about IETF processes and the IRTF... The
> first paragraph is fine but you need to expand on that and get quickly
> towards a summary of the problem (the IETF hasn't provided a proper
> system on which to build network accountability so ISPs have started to
> bodge their own, with dire consequences for the future of the network).
>
> I think we need to re-phrase quite a bit of the detailed stuff as well,
> but that is a matter of editing rather than complete change of meaning
> so I will leave it for now...
>
> Final thing - this is already starting to get too long. The MPTCP BoF
> description was ~600 words in total, TANA 9pre-cursor to LEDBAT) was
> ~450 total). You are already at 750 and you have 3 major bullets with no
> text! In other words we need to cut by about 50%...
>
> Toby
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R
>> Sent: 07 September 2009 11:19
>> To: Woundy, Richard; COURCOUBETIS, Costas; Steven BLAKE; Marcelo
>> BAGNULO BRAUN; Moncaster,T,Toby,DER3 R; Agarwal, Anil; Tom Taylor; Ken
>> Carlberg; Leslie Daigle; BOWMAN Don
>> Cc: re-ECN unIETF list
>> Subject: Fwd: [re-ECN] Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF in
>> Hiroshima?
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Attached is my attempt so far. I started again - I'm happy with it so
>> far, but it needs the specifics added at the end, where indicated.
>>
>> I'm sending in case I don't get good connectivity while travelling.
>> Once I'm done, I'll send a complete copy. But this gives something for
>> you to push back on or for you to propose alternative text.
>>
>> Apologies for sending an attachment (in a hurry).
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:31:14 +0100
>>> To: "Woundy, Richard" <[e-mail]>om>,
>>> "COURCOUBETIS, Costas" <[e-mail]>gr>, Steven BLAKE
>>> <[e-mail]>om>, Marcelo BAGNULO BRAUN
>>> <[e-mail]>es>, "MONCASTER, Toby" <[e-mail]>om>,
>>> "Agarwal, Anil" <[e-mail]>om>, Tom Taylor
>>> <[e-mail]>om>, Ken Carlberg <[e-mail]>
>>> From: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: RE: [re-ECN] Fwd: Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF
>>> inHiroshima?
>>> Cc: re-ECN unIETF list <[e-mail]>
>>>       
>> [snip]
>>
>>     
>>> I'm off to a wedding for the rest of the day. I'll get back to this
>>> first-thing (UK time) Sunday.
>>>       
>>> Here's a suggested proposal outline:
>>> I'm aiming for something as brief as possible (e.g. 1-2pp).
>>>
>>> 1. Intro
>>>   1 para top level motivation: Accountability for Congestion
>>>   1 para ambitious, so we have to bite off smallest self-contained
>>>       
>> chunk
>>     
>>>   1 para which particular bites to take (using an expt approach like
>>>       
>> LISP):
>>     
>>>     a) (INF) recording motivation(s)
>>>     b) (EXP) base congestion exposure protocol
>>>     c) (STD) process pre-requisites to do (b)
>>>     d) (INF) reports on experiments
>>>   1 para where other stuff is getting done, e.g. ICCRG
>>>
>>> 2. A little more on each proposed working-group activity
>>> 2.1 Motivation
>>>     Accountability for Congestion
>>>     Good fences make good neighbours
>>>     - IETF not been good at doing this (NATs, firewalls)
>>>     - this is a chance to do it well
>>>     Vision
>>>     - ECN gives all traffic tiny jitter & loss
>>>     - congestion accountability handles other QoS dimension; b/w
>>>       
>> allocation
>>     
>>>     - that's QoS sorted :)
>>> 2.2 Protocol work
>>>        prob re-ECN, but open to suggestions
>>>        IPv4, IPv6 & TCP as example transport (for now)
>>> 2.3 IETF Process
>>>     Depends on protocol encoding chosen
>>>     Current view:
>>>       need bit 48 in IPv4 hdr & IPv6 extension hdr + clash with ECN
>>>       
>> nonce
>>     
>>>     Planned assignment of required field(s) as experimental
>>>     Guidelines on how to confine experimental values (in space &
>>>       
>> time)
>>     
>>> 2.4 Reports on Experiments
>>>     This w-g NOT designed to standardise uses of the protocol
>>>     - e.g. policers, new congestion controls, simpler QoS,
>>>       inter-domain metering, traffic engineering, DDoS miitigation
>>>     But w-g will act as a focus for expts & trials in using its
>>>       
>> protocol
>>     
>>>     Will produce reports on role of congestion exposure in trials,
>>>       
>> issues,
>>     
>>>     recommendations, re-thinks, etc.
>>>     Informs any future move from experimental to stds track
>>> 2.5 (Optional) Focused work on deployment?
>>>     This is more than the minimum work that the w-g needs to bite
>>>       
> off
>   
>>>     But it's the most important gating factor
>>>     Therefore, it could form a focused piece of work in its own
>>>       
> right
>   
>>>     Survey of middleboxes that will break ECN, re-ECN etc.
>>>     Permanent partial deployment (user & net choice to expose
>>>       
>> congestion)
>>     
>>>     Incremental deployment outline & incentives
>>>
>>> 3. Proposed BoF Agenda
>>>    Motivations (which main motivation?)
>>>    Demo (what demo?)
>>>    Misconceptions
>>>     - congestion (with ECN) != impairment
>>>     - uncongested path != good (a symptom of broken transport
>>>       
>> protocols)
>>     
>>>     - exposing congestion != operator privacy concerns
>>>    Brief protocol outline
>>>    Relationship to other w-gs
>>>    Community - who's doing what; who's planning what
>>>    Questions to put to a vote
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>       
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>