Somehow the wrong old name seems to stick with this draft. I can understand that, I'm used to it: it's just normal that people want to use your name all the time when you're an exceptionally good-looking celebrity. So of course draft-welzl-... is sexier than draft-ietf-aqm-.... but we just have to face the truth: the correct name of this draft is (and has long been) draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits
(this wrongly appears in at least two positions in the text below) Cheers, Michael > On 21. jul. 2015, at 21.02, Scheffenegger, Richard <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Title: Explicit Congestion Notification for Lower Layer Protocols >> Submission Date: 2015-07-20 >> URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1424/ >> Please reply by 2015-10-30 >> From: Transport Area Working Group (David Black <[email protected]>) >> To: 3GPP ([email protected]) >> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>,Gorry Fairhurst >> <[email protected]>,Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]>,Spencer >> Dawkins <[email protected]>,John Kaippallimalil >> <[email protected]>,Bob Briscoe >> <[email protected]>,Transport Area Working Group Discussion List >> <[email protected]> >> Response Contact: David Black <[email protected]> >> Technical Contact: Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> >> Purpose: For comment >> >> Body: To: 3GPP SA, 3GPP CT, 3GPP RAN, 3GPP SA4, 3GPP SA2, 3GPP RAN2 >> From: IETF TSVWG >> >> In 2001, the IETF introduced explicit congestion notification (ECN) to the >> Internet Protocol as a proposed standard [RFC3168]. The purpose of ECN was >> to notify congestion without having to drop packets. The IETF originally >> specified ECN for cases where buffers were IP-aware. However, ECN is now >> being used in a number of environments including codec selection and rate >> adaptation, where 3GPP protocols such as PDCP encapsulate IP. As active >> queue management (AQM) and ECN become widely deployed in 3GPP networks and >> interconnected IP networks, it could be incompatible with the standardized >> use of ECN across the end-to-end IP transport [RFC7567]. >> >> The IETF is now considering new uses of ECN for low latency [draft-welzl- >> ecn-benefits] that would be applicable to 5G mobile flows. However, the >> IETF has realized that it has given little if any guidance on how to add >> explicit congestion notification to lower layer protocols or interfaces >> between lower layers and ECN in IP. >> >> This liaison statement is to inform 3GPP, in particular those groups >> including those involved in 3GPP Release-10 work on the work item ECSRA_LA >> (TR23.860) - SA4, CT4, SA2 and RAN2. Please distribute to all groups that >> have used or plan to use IETF ECN /AQM RFCs in 3GPP specifications. >> >> The IETF has started work on guidelines for adding ECN to protocols that >> may encapsulate IP and interfacing these protocols with ECN in IP. Then IP >> may act in its role as an interoperability protocol over multiple >> forwarding protocols. This activity is led by the IETF's transport >> services working group (tsvwg). >> >> Actions: >> The IETF tsvwg kindly asks 3GPP: >> 1) to tell the IETF tsvwg which 3GPP working groups could be affected by >> this work. >> 2) To inform the IETF tsvwg of any specific 3GPP specifications affected >> by this work. >> 3) to forward this liaison statement to these affected working groups, and >> to invite them to review the latest draft of the guidelines, available >> here: >> < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap- >> guidelines> >> >> Review comments are particularly welcome on: >> - comprehensibility for the 3GPP community >> - usefulness and applicability >> - technical feasibility >> >> Review comments may be posted directly to the IETF tsvwg mailing list >> <mailto: [email protected]>. Postings from non-subscribers may be delayed by >> moderation. Alternatively, subscription is open to all at: < >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>. >> >> The following IETF specifications or drafts are particularly relevant to >> this activity (the relevance of each of them is explained in the first >> item below): >> * draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines >> * RFC3168 updated by RFC4301, RFC6040 (ECN in respectively: IP/TCP, IPsec >> & IP-in-IP tunnels) >> * RFC6679 (ECN in RTP) >> * RFC5129 updated by RFC5462 (ECN in MPLS) >> * RFC4774 (Specifying alternative semantics for the ECN field) >> * RFC7567 (Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management >> * draft-welzl-ecn-benefits (Benefits to Applications of Using ECN) >> >> Yours, >> --David L. Black (TSVWG co-chair) >> Attachments: >> >> No document has been attached > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
