Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01.txt

G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Wed, 20 July 2016 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA1812D9A2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NTPnpe_2_xaE for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5438812D7CB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-a1b1.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a1b1.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.161.177]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 112351B0024E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:13:42 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <578FBF59.7080504@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:13:45 +0200
From: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <20160720135351.1444.2720.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C5E1D4DC-F52A-4F39-99D2-3A96AD7BC66C@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <C5E1D4DC-F52A-4F39-99D2-3A96AD7BC66C@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Fg21-e2BdInRhJZLMrQVwze_K1Q>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01.txt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:13:51 -0000

Yes, I think this should be added,

Gorry

On 20/07/2016, 16:58, Colin Perkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I said in the meeting, this should also update Section 7.3.3 of RFC 6679, which makes the same recommendations for congestion response as RFC 3168 for RTP-related use of ECN.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>
>> On 20 Jul 2016, at 15:53, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>
>>
>>         Title           : Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Specification to Allow IETF Experimentation
>>         Authors         : Naeem Khademi
>>                           Michael Welzl
>>                           Grenville Armitage
>>                           Godred Fairhurst
>> 	Filename        : draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01.txt
>> 	Pages           : 12
>> 	Date            : 2016-07-20
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document relaxes recommendations and prescriptions from RFC3168
>>    and RFC4774 that get in the way of experimentation with different ECN
>>    strategies.  First, RFC3168 and RFC4774 state that, upon the receipt
>>    by an ECN-Capable transport of a single CE packet, the congestion
>>    control algorithms followed at the end-systems MUST be essentially
>>    the same as the congestion control response to a single dropped
>>    packet.  This document relaxes this rule in order to encourage
>>    experimentation with different backoff strategies.  Second, this
>>    document allows future IETF specifications to use the ECT(1)
>>    codepoint in ways that are currently prohibited by RFC3168.  Third,
>>    this document allows future IETF experiments to use the ECT(0) or
>>    ECT(1) codepoint on any TCP segment.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>