[Tsvwg] draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel as WG item?

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

James,

On this question about whether draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel should 
be a tsvwg wg item...

Unless you already deem you have enough interest, can I ask that your 
request for interest is cross-posted to
         [e-mail]?

PCN is where the immediate pain is being felt on this, but I figured 
the correct place for the work is tsvwg, as it more general than PCN.

Other places that might be affected / interested / willing to review:
         [e-mail]
         [e-mail]           ) later?
         [e-mail]          ) later?

I've said 'later' for the last two, as it's probably not worth 
bothering them until you know there is interest in actually doing the 
work first.


Tx


Bob

At 09:35 30/07/2008, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
>Hi
>
>Looking from the PCN WG perspective.
>The only way to maintain some kind of e2e ECN semantics across PCN
>domains without tunneling involves the use of extra DSCP codepoints like
>is proposed in the 3-state PCN coding proposal.
>Given the resistance against using more DSCP codepoints than necessary I
>support that draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01 becomes a WG item.
>
>
>/Ingemar
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of Michael Menth
> > Sent: den 29 juli 2008 15:43
> > To: James M. Polk
> > Cc: tsvwg; ken carlberg
> > Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] DRAFT Minutes from TSVWG Dublin (IETF72)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > yes, tunneling is a big issue that makes life hard for PCN.
> > This clarifying work is needed.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >     Michael
> >
> > James M. Polk wrote:
> > > At 02:58 AM 7/29/2008, ken carlberg wrote:
> > >> if I heard correctly, it was agreed (mumbled :-) to take the
> > >> discussion onto the list
> > >
> > > this is correct, mostly because not enough folks admitted they had
> > > read it (by not raising their hands when asked "who read
> > this ID") to
> > > give an informed opinion one way or the other.
> > >
> > > I will clarify this in the notes
> > >
> > > that said, do folks feel strongly that this ID should be a
> > TSVWG item?
> > >
> > > James
> > > TSVWG co-chair
> > >
> > >
> > >> -ken
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Jul 28, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I read the section on Bob's draft
> > >>> (draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01)
> > >>> but it was not clear to me either in the meeting (hard to hear
> > >>> mid-way
> > >>> back) or in the notes whether the WG decided to proceed
> > with the I-D
> > >>> as a WG item.
> > >>>
> > >>> My two cents on the issue is that it seems like a
> > worthwhile I-D for
> > >>> the WG.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jason
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >>>> Behalf Of James M. Polk
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:32 PM
> > >>>> To: tsvwg
> > >>>> Subject: [Tsvwg] DRAFT Minutes from TSVWG Dublin (IETF72)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please comment about accuracy
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/tsvwg.txt
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> James
> > >>>> IETF TSVWG co-chair
> > >>>>
> > >>>>              ***********************************
> > >>>>     "It should NEVER be inconvenient to do the right thing"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
> > University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science Am
> > Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
> > phone: [phone], fax: [phone]
> > mailto:[e-mail]
> > http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn
> >
> >

____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, <[e-mail]>      Networks Research Centre, BT Research
B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    [phone]