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

[<[e-mail]>]

Note for non-British people - Bodge = "A clumsy or inelegant job,
usually a temporary repair") http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bodge - they
might also have added usually involving the use of copious amounts of
gaffer tape!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: 07 September 2009 11:36
> To: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF
> inHiroshima?
> 
> 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]>s.com>, Marcelo BAGNULO BRAUN
> > ><[e-mail]>3m.es>, "MONCASTER, Toby" <[e-mail]>om>,
> > >"Agarwal, Anil" <[e-mail]>om>, Tom Taylor
> > ><[e-mail]>s.com>, 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