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

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