Re: [tsvwg] draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions - Has anyone read this?

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 10/19/2012 8:49 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> I'll update the status. I also changed the subject - so hopefully people
> will see this draft and start to look at this.
> 
> I'm keen that we get some feedback from people, and then see this sort of
> work progress.
> 
> Has anyone on the TSVWG list read this ....
> 
> - do people think we should be working on this topic at the IETF?
> - what sort of recommendations are needed - and who needs these?
> - do you have other ideas or experience that may be relevant?


I've read it.

I think it would be fine to work on in TSVWG, if there's interest,
and if the scope is limited to basically Informational guidance.

I am not personally sure that such recommendations are needed, but
from the range of different reactions the authors describe, I can
see that there's room for someone to make bad decisions and think
they're doing something smart.  So, a document like this *could*
help avoid some of those situations.

As AD for RMCAT, I see this as supplementary, if it was to be
taken up.  RMCAT will do concrete algorithms, and this is more of
a general guidance.  Since RMCAT seems to have kind of a full
plate and aggressive schedule with the existing charter, it may
be a fair idea to handle this in TSVWG, if there's interest.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems