(I have read Michael's reply to this, but I'll respond here.) Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This draft has been discussed a bit here and in TSVWG: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-01
I do think this is the right place to discuss it. >> As I understand, the IAB has also discussed it a bit, and would >> be happy if this was something that an IETF working group >> published. I believe the TSVWG chairs also discussed this and >> would be fine if the AQM working group adopted it. Thus, I am in favor of adopting it, with the understanding that it will see significant changes during our discussion. > I don't share the relentless optimism of this document, and would > like it - or a competing document - to go into the potential negatives. I think it should concentrate on what its name says: the benefits of ECN, both now and in an expected future; but that it should also at least mention downsides this WG sees: and that it should avoid any recommendation stronger than "make ECN available to consenting applications". > examples of this include the TOS washing problem bob alluded to > in one of the tsvwg meetings (the monday one), This definitely deserves mention. > the impact on competing flows, That might have to go into a companion document. I think this document could try to describe the bounds of such issues, but not the details. > the problem of unresponsive agents or other misuse, I'm not sure what Dave is alluding to here... > the deprecation (?) of the nonce mechanism, I don't accept it as a given that the nonce should be deprecated; though I do think that discussion will come up. > and how to properly switch between marking and dropping in an aqm. I doubt this document will go into much detail there. Basically, IMHO, an AQM should mark well before dropping becomes necessary; and when dropping becomes necessary, ECN-capable packets should be dropped essentially as often as non-ECN-capable packets. I'm not sure this document should say much about that, though... > There are also the possibilities in new uses for ecn (for example, in > the original rmcat nada proposal), in usages on local links in routing > protocols, and in new protocols such as quic, etc. Sounds like interesting reading, Dave -- do you want to send pointers? -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
