Spencer - Many thanks for the review.
- this draft is targeted as a BCP - just seems strange, because it's a lot more like a requirements document. If everyone else is OK with this, I'm ok (just confused about why considerations for additional work on ECN would be a BCP).
Well, this is how I think of it. It is not a requirements document, in that it is not saying that we *need* alternate semantics for the ECN document and this is what these alternate semantics should do. Rather, it is saying that the IETF agrees that these are guidelines that *any* alternate semantics for the ECN field should follow.
- In Figure 1, I THINK the "Old Router" is actually an "Old Router Experiencing Congestion" - is this correct? If so, labeling the router as "experiencing congestion" would have helped me - at first glance, the figure seems to say "old routers drop non-ECN traffic", but what I think is actually meant is "old routers drop non-ECN traffic when they encounter congestion because there is no other choice".
Yep, you are right, this is about an "old" router that is congested and ready to drop or mark the next arriving packet. I added this to the caption. - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
