Hi Bob, I took a brief look at the draft and it's clearly useful work.
One thing that could do with clarification in the Introduction is that ECN - by itself - doesn't necessarily lead to low loss and delay - it should be made clear that it reflects the marking approach of the underlying scheme/AQM. Piers On 4 Nov 2013, at 22:03, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Folks, > > Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item in the > IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need visibility of > interest. > Even better, if you're willing to read / comment / review / implement > > Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines> > > Abstract > > The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion > notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that > encapsulates IP. The aim is for explicit congestion signals to > propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP. Then the > IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry > congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the > transport layer (L4). Following these guidelines should assure > interworking between new lower layer congestion notification > mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies. > > > [Cross-posting tsvwg & aqm, just in case] > > > Bob Briscoe, > also for co-authors Pat Thaler and John Kaippallimalil > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
