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

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toby,

two comments for my side so far:

Regarding the requirements, I'm not sure if their are understandable for 
somebody who don't know the re-ECN ideas. Although another ordering might 
help. And at this point of the document upstream and downstream congestion 
needs to be explained first.

In 5.2 I don't see why you are referring to re-ECN in the first paragraph 
while remaining very general in the rest of the section. I would prefer to 
move the reference to re-ECN to the end of the section. Where else a direct 
mention of ECN as a mechanism giving feedback would make the idea of 
re-feedback more clear to me.
Btw. why has ECN been kicked out completely?

Mirja


On Friday 25 September 2009 14:13:03 [e-mail] wrote:
> Here is what I have done so far. I haven't yet incorporated one of
> Michael's abstracts and I still haven't added in the proper list of
> authors. I have heavily edited several sections but have to admit I haven't
> tried to read through to see if it makes any sense.
>
> I am going to leave this now for a couple of days, probably until Tuesday.
> Anyone wanting to edit it in the meantime please feel free!
>
> Toby
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Toby Moncaster, Senior Researcher, Network Infrastructure Practise
> B54/70 Adastral Park, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  [phone]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Menth [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 25 September 2009 00:01
> > To: Moncaster,T,Toby,DER3 R
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] preliminary draft of problem statement- authors
> > wanted
> >
> > Hi Toby,
> >
> > here is some text for the abstract.
> >
> > >    We need to add an abstract summarising the problem and pointing
> > >
> > >    towards congestion exposure as an answer...
> >
> > I like it short:
> >
> > The idea of congestion exposure means that a flow reveals an estimate
> > of
> > the congestion it causes on its remaining downstream path. It makes
> > policing or other actions depending on downstream congestion in the
> > Internet more effective and leads thereby to a more efficient and
> > fairer
> > Internet. This document motivates the need for congestion exposure and
> > illustrates its usefulness in different use cases. Therefore, actions
> > should be taken to implement a simple form of congestion exposure in
> > the
> > Internet.
> >
> > However, an enumeration for what congestion exposure may be useful can
> > help to catch the reader's interest:
> >
> > The idea of congestion exposure means that a flow reveals an estimate
> > of
> > the congestion it causes on its remaining downstream path. Congestion
> > exposure may be useful for various purposes, e.g.,  meaningful policing
> > at network ingresses, congestion-based accounting between ISPs, fairer
> > bandwidth sharing among users, increased trust in the
> > congestion-responsiveness of end-systems, and possibly
> > congestion-dependent load balancing and routing. Therefore, congestion
> > exposure leads to a more efficient and fairer Internet. This document
> > motivates the need for congestion exposure and illustrates its
> > usefulness in different use cases. Therefore, actions should be taken
> > to
> > implement a simple form of congestion exposure in the Internet.
> >
> > The abstract may also contain a summary of the problem (I don't find
> > it's necessary in the abstract) and be placed before the text above:
> >
> > The Internet relies on TCP's congestion control algorithm and saved it
> > from a major congestion collapse since its adoption. However, TCP is
> > applied on a voluntary base and the bandwidth is fairly shared among
> > flows instead of users. This is problematic so that ISPs take simple or
> > advanced policing actions on some sorts of traffic. However, since
> > congestion on the downstream path of a flow is not visible, these
> > approaches possibly hit users unnecessarily and are not effective
> > enough.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >     Michael
> >
> > [e-mail] schrieb:
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
-------------------------------------------------------------------