Re: [tsvwg] draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions -- which WG?

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Mon, 29 October 2012 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.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 C147421F84E6 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_TIME=2.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mqdPuqqgYQEP for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.ukserverhosting.net [92.48.103.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AF321F8475 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=g11.org.uk; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject; bh=r9vvPPdkhKBe7kj0suUV+B+hR04ccMsq0yCWBaBn6S0=; b=MVJjMoRw0TQJSxL9zh3zoW0oyXz8hlaKJlaj0Vj0s2QixH6V9xVmpwXjiU4V031rzMSFtbENe9lb8U83DDMQyQM72H2xQzNTvyfk5t8vnUoe14qCCcWSn2VlwVjIrAIF;
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:50537 helo=[192.168.0.20]) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1TSm6I-0005v2-BF; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:57:42 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5A22F3909@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:57:43 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB5AE70B-6F30-4C72-957B-057116728DD3@g11.org.uk>
References: <EA690191-7825-4FCD-873D-3BFCFF92A59B@g11.org.uk> <201210241816.q9OIG4oh025197@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4AE5C6BA-E35C-4268-A778-3BA77EE6C7CD@g11.org.uk> <201210251250.q9PCosEG028217@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <362F5AD2-725E-452D-B446-53EEFAB2C826@g11.org.uk> <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5A22F3909@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions -- which WG?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:57:46 -0000

Ruediger,

yes, a fair point. we'll add some more insight into the impact and possibly pro's/con's of various type of reactions.

And just to reinterate a point that I tried to make earlier in this discussion.  The fact that industry (vendors and providers) *are* doing work on reactions other than, and not related to, using CC algo in response to ECN signaling is a kind of reality check that we need to be aware of and provide insight where we can.

cheers,

-ken


On Oct 29, 2012, at 4:19 AM, <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> my expertise is with QoS. I side with Michael and Bob that your document is not very helpful if it is a list with possible maybe-measures how to deal with congestion for real time applications. As mentioned earlier, PCN offers mechanisms with a scope on real tim,e services at least. So just stating "remark to another DSCP" doesn't seem to bother to provide an argument as we've looked into PCN and don't think it's useful. A review of the state of the art to me seems to be the least a what a reader may expect. Take PCN as an example, there's more to review today if it comes to QoS.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rüdiger
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> [Bob]
>> On the other kitchen sink of responses (triggering RSVP, Diffserv, Redundancy, FEC etc), I'm with Michael W. If you're just listing what implementers might do, then it has little value. If you're recommending what implementers shouldn't do or what they should, it would be worth keeping these. But none of these other responses you list seem to be that prevalent, important or practical.
> 
> [Ken]
> I think what is missing in those sections is more discussion about the pro's and con's of the various approaches.  For example, (a) the need for, and difficulty in achieving, transitive trust between nodes under different administrative control for diff-serv code points, or on the other hand (b) the added value of adding markings to packets that could influence downstream traffic engineering on an as-needed basis.  I prefer to stay away from recomendations because that can be entirely scenario and user-group specific.
> 
> [snip]