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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Ken,

Perhaps we could bounce this question back to you: what is the main 
single take-home message you want us to get from this draft? THat 
should decide which WG it's in.

I believe the primary message is "TFRC is good enough if you've got 
ECN, so we can get started without RMCAT if we have ECN." I don't 
think that's true (as I have been arguing on the list), but I think 
that's the message the draft is wanting people to hear most. If that 
were the case, then TSVWG would be reasonable.

I would have thought the impact of users not responding to ECN would 
be just as much in scope for RMCAT as TSVWG (and ConEx is where 
policing/non-compliance is most being addressed, which is the other 
side of this problem).

Regarding FEC, I think this is a bit of a corner-case in this draft, 
so I wouldn't decide which WG based on that.


Bob

At 14:15 23/10/2012, ken carlberg wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've been asked publically and privately about my thoughts as to 
>where this document should end up -- TSVWG or RMCAT.  When the 
>question was first brought up I was indifferent because I could see 
>a case for both.  However, when I thought about it for a while, I 
>felt more comfortable advancing this through TSVWG.
>
>The reason for this line of thoughts is that only a portion of the 
>ECN Reactions draft deals with congestion control algorithms.  And 
>while RMCAT talks about the generic term of "mechanisms" in its 
>charter, the heart of the charter and deliverables seems to focus on 
>algorithms, which is really just one type of mechanism.  On the 
>other hand, the Reactions draft looks into other "mechanisms" like 
>FEC, signaling, and most importantly, the impact of a set of users 
>not responding to ECN.  And its this last item where we bring in 
>some simulation work and is probably the strongest reason (ie, the 
>simulation results) as to why its beneficial to have this in an IETF 
>document.  And its these other items that seem out of scope of RMCAT.
>
>Assuming this draft is accepted as a working group item in TSVWG, I 
>would also want to send the document to RMCAT for review when we get 
>to a WG last call for comments stage, though I sure the core set of 
>folks will be attending both sets of meetings and mailing lists.
>
>If folks feel I've missed something, please don't be shy in letting 
>us know :-)
>
>-ken

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design