Re: [sfc] Regarding draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support adoption call

I am pretty sure that what is intended is exactly what you say you 
support, namely simple propagation of the information for the ECN 
control loop, not a new loop.

Can you suggest additional or modified owrding for the document to help 
make this clear to readers?

Thank you,
Joel

On 1/28/19 4:18 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> I read the draft and had a clarification question about Section 1.3
> and Section 4.
> 
> Is the draft suggestion an alternate congestion control mechanism
> between tunnel ingress and tunnel egress which is working separately
> from end-to-end congestion control that requires ECN?
> 
> If it's just about propagation of bits for the original feedback loop
> (i.e. before the tunnel header is added), I support the draft.  If
> it's attempting to define a new congestion feedback loop and
> mechanism, I think it may need more discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anoop
> 
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:14 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> While the time for the call has completed, I would like to see the
>> current discussion resolve before judging the adoption as chair (with Jim).
>> As a corollary, if anyone who has not spoken up has an opinion about the
>> adoption, it is still VERY helpful if you speak up.  Please provide
>> motivation for your response.
>>
>> If things do not resolve clearly on their own, the chairs will (as is
>> required) reach a determination anyway, but WG clarity is preferred.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Joel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sfc mailing list
>> sfc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc