I support this draft. Vinay Bannai Cloud Engineering PayPal
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:03:45 +0000 To: "tsvwg IETF list" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, AQM IETF list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> From: Bob Briscoe <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Who supports tsvwg adoption of adding ECN to L2 or tunnel protocols? Cc: John Kaippallimalil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Pat Thaler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT -- Vinay Bannai Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Google Voice: 415 938 7576
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
