Re: [tsvwg] ECN experimentation draft - support adoption

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi

I support TSVWG adoption of this draft, mainly to support L4S but also to allow for the use of ABE.

/Ingemar

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:04:20 +0000
> From: "Black, David" <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [tsvwg] ECN experimentation draft - support adoption
> Message-ID:
> 	<[e-mail].
> emc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I support TSVWG adoption of this draft as its author (individual comment, not
> in WG chair role), and I'd ask anyone else who is interested in seeing this
> draft and the experiments that it enables progress to also please send a note
> supporting adoption of this draft to the TSVWG list.
> 
> Thanks in advance, --David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Black, David
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 4:25 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] The TSVWG WG has placed draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-
> > experimentation in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
> >
> > Written as draft author, *not* WG chair, here are a few more details.
> >
> > > Following discussion at the IETF meeting in Seoul, this email starts a
> > > formal adoption call for the above process draft. The draft, if adopted
> > > will form the *BASIS* for a PS Update to RFC 3168, allowing the way for
> > > experimentation using the ECT codepoint by publication of Experimental
> > > RFCs. The document also proposes ending the previous IETF experiment
> > > known as the "ECN Nonce".
> >
> > This draft also enables experimentation with different sender responses
> > to ECN-detected congestion (CE-marked packets) by comparison to drops,
> > and with use of ECN on TCP control packets and retransmitted packets.
> > Drafts for these two areas of experimentation are being handled by
> > the TCPM WG - in contrast, L4S is expected to be handled by the TSVWG
> > WG.  Also, the ECT codepoint intended for experimentation is ECT(1).
> >
> > I want to emphasize "*BASIS*" above.  This is only an adoption call - the
> text
> > in this draft will almost certainly be modified before the WG is done with
> this
> > draft.
> >
> > Opposing adoption of this draft is effectively taking the position that one or
> > more of the referenced experiments are very bad ideas that should not be
> > pursued.
> >
> > Thanks, --David
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 12:27 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Subject: The TSVWG WG has placed draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-
> experimentation in
> > > state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
> > >
> > >
> > > The TSVWG WG has placed draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation in
> state
> > > Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Gorry Fairhurst)
> > >
> > > The document is available at
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-
> experimentation/
> > >
> > >
> > > Comment:
> > > Following discussion at the IETF meeting in Seoul, this email starts a
> > > formal adoption call for the above process draft. The draft, if adopted
> > > will form the *BASIS* for a PS Update to RFC 3168, allowing the way for
> > > experimentation using the ECT codepoint by publication of Experimental
> > > RFCs. The document also proposes ending the previous IETF experiment
> > > known as the "ECN Nonce".
> > >
> > > Comments are welcome on the list to indicate if such a document is
> > > considered useful for the IETF to publish, or expressing concerns about
> > > any of these topics. You may also send comments on the current text
> (and
> > > these are welcome), but, if you do, please also clearly indicate if you
> > > support the progress of work on this topic within TSVWG.
> > >
> > > All comments need to be received by 9th Dec 2016, after which a decision
> > > will be made on how to progress. (You may read about the adoption
> process
> > > in RFC7221.)
>