Re: [TERNLI] Notes from tonight's ad hoc

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 02 August 2006 14:19 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8HYr-0003zg-Fq; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:19:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8HYq-0003zb-VD for ternli@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:19:00 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8HYp-0007Yl-KK for ternli@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:19:00 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (pool-71-106-94-15.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.94.15]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k72EIDY04839; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <44D0B41F.2010605@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:18:07 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [TERNLI] Notes from tonight's ad hoc
References: <20060728114353.275FB444296@lawyers.icir.org> <847C30FB-FC4D-4412-8F54-785C9D038C57@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <847C30FB-FC4D-4412-8F54-785C9D038C57@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1A963CAB297D89FEC42D330E"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: ternli@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ternli@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport-Enhancing Refinements to the Network Layer Interface <ternli.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ternli>, <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ternli>
List-Post: <mailto:ternli@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ternli>, <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ternli-bounces@ietf.org


Aaron Falk wrote:
> catching up...perhaps this point is made later in the thread...
> 
> On Jul 28, 2006, at 4:43 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
> 
>>  The real thing to get across is the available
>> capacity has changed somewhat dramatically.
> 
> I think you only want to give *hints* when things have gotten *worse*. 

That presumes knowing what 'worse' is - which requires knowledge of what
the other layer is trying to do.

> Giving hints that things have gotten better may mislead a sender to
> thinking that they know where the bottleneck is, etc. 

Let's not decide 'worse' or 'better'. "Changed" is enough; let the other
layer figure out what the impact is, IMO.

Joe