Roger,
On 3/4/13 7:20 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an
educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where
does it apply? ... :-)
That basic question is a very important one to ask from time to time.
Others have
We had such a WG-Chairs session dedicated exactly to this topic (document
shepherding) at IETF-82 - including a panel of document shepherds and ADs
sharing experience and discussing ways to improve the process and make the
shepherds role more efficient.
Dan
-Original Message-
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Call for Comment: RFC Format Requirements and Future
Development
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:48:53AM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
Limiting the waste of
On 5/03/2013 00:49, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On 3/4/2013 2:31 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the
Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
I have a general question for the community as to
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
To: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:26 PM
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes:
Mary And, I continue to
Hi Dave,
On 03/04/2013 11:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/4/2013 1:48 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a
choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an
empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about
Hi Tom,
On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message - From: Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu To: Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Cc: Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, March
04, 2013 8:26 PM
Mary == Mary Barnes
Brian,
On 03/03/2013 03:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lars,
Let's try that statement parametrised:
*Someone* on the IESG needs to understand X.
I think there are many plausible values of X, certainly including
congestion control. But what do we do when, for some value of X,
there is no
Mary,
On 03/03/2013 05:32 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Lars,
Do you not have individuals in the directorate that are experts on
congestion control (that aren't document authors) that can review for
technical sanity of the proposal? ISTM that some of the TSV nominees
We have individuals in the
- Original Message -
From: Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:13 AM
Hi Tom,
On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message - From:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a wireless network, where packets can be lost without
congestion. This means that TCP into, out of, or across,
The problem with the congestion/interference and corruption problem is that
error notification does
not percolate up the stack.
If a MAC driver could say 'this frame is corrupt, failed CRC' and that
information percolated up the layers into the flow to the endpoints,
TCP or similar might have
On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:43, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
but I am positing that for most
of the IETF, congestion control is a solved topic and little expertise
is needed
I have seen too many WGs trying to build lightweight UDP-based application
protocols that do not correctly back off
Ah, the 'but security, unlike transport, is actually important' argument.
Having seen subscribers to that philosophy unsuccessfully attempt to design
transport protocols (and raise the MD5 issue repeatedly, because it's
considered a security issue, and they're at home with security), I would
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mary Barnes
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find such
reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom chairs to
produce these? While this is not listed as a requirement in RFC
Hi Russ,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Benoit Claise
Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrr trying to track all
the open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the
authors.
[WEG] While I realize that Benoit was originally speaking
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a wireless network, where packets can be lost
inline
- Original Message -
From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
To: daedu...@btconnect.com; martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
Cc: hartmans-i...@mit.edu; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:53 PM
Ah, the 'but security, unlike transport, is actually important'
argument.
Having seen
Hi Tom
On 03/05/2013 12:43 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:13 AM
Hi Tom,
On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p.
On 3/5/2013 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a
Begin forwarded message:
From: Srinivasan Keshav kes...@uwaterloo.ca
Subject: [e2e] Why do we need congestion control?
Date: March 5, 2013 15:04:48 GMT+01:00
To: end2end-inter...@postel.org end2end-inter...@postel.org
To answer this question, I put together some slides for a presentation
On Mar 5, 2013, at 15:10, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
The question is can we do with a
Transport Area Director whose congestion control skills are limited; I
am suggesting we can, because of all the work over the years in
congestion control and the relative stability of the topic.
Allison:
The split between Transport and RAI was needed. Together it is too much work
for one Area.
The rest of your question ought to be discussed at the TSVAREA meeting in
Orlando.
Russ
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Hi, Russ,
Was there something causative about
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 23:44, Allison Mankin allison.man...@gmail.com wrote:
Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
a lot of thought went into making sure that the WGs that went on to form RAI
formed a cohesive whole. In hindsight, we should have thought more about
Hi.
Thanks to Dale for the new search plugins - useful.
I made these other ones that get RFCs and use the tools.ietf.org HTML
page to find sets of drafts from a few words. They were originally
published on the tools discuss list about 19 months ago.
Download the attachments into the
Hi all,
I created a Doodle poll to see if we can find a time in Orlando to
meet face to face.
Doodle poll for time at Orlando to discuss open issues and moving
forward with Human Language Negotiation:
http://doodle.com/uwedikez6etwsf39
Link to current version (-02) of draft:
On 3/5/2013 8:42 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Finally, let's not forget that this year was a special case,
I'm going to strongly suggest that that is both wrong and
counter-productive to claim.
As Mary (and I) noted, TSV has been at a crisis level to fill for some
years now, but I believe it
On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
Hi Russ,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty
On 3/5/2013 8:18 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Martin already mentioned RMCAT. And I mentioned Wgs wanting to build
lightweight UDP-based protocols, which are hitting transport issues incl.
congestion control all the time.
Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol
Original Message -
From: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk; martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu;
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:18 PM
On Mar 5, 2013, at 15:10, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
The question is can we do with a
On 3/4/2013 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate
the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that
fails or succeeds does so because it has community consensus and demand,
not because an AD was diligent
From: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the
Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find
such reports
Wouldn't it suffice to say The IETF should not use a document format
if it is substantially bulkier than an alternative format that
satisfies substantially similar goals. and leave the details to the
RFC Editor?
Dale
Joe,
On 3/5/2013 10:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 3/4/2013 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate
the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that
fails or succeeds does so because it has community consensus
On 3/5/13 9:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
We should not expect to appoint IESG members that need a tutorial on
basic protocol principles.
I haven't seen anybody propose appointing someone who needs a
tutorial on basic protocol principles. The discussion so far
has seemed mostly to be whether or not
On 3/5/2013 10:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Joe,
On 3/5/2013 10:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 3/4/2013 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate
the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that
fails or
On 3/5/2013 10:40 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On 3/5/2013 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their
motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet =
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a wireless
On 3/5/2013 3:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In the 3GPP case of GSM/UMTS/LTE, the wireless network will never drop
the packet, by design. It will just delay the packet as it gets
resent through various checkpoints and goes through various rounds of
FEC. The result is delay, TCP penalties
On Mar 5, 2013, at 18:58, Bob Braden bra...@isi.edu wrote:
Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol at
the application layer is generally a Bad Idea. Why do the same bad ideas keep
being reinvented?
Because we don't have a good selection of transport protocols
Russ,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:18:20AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
The split between Transport and RAI was needed. Together it is too much
work for one Area.
Not everybody believed at the time, and still believes that increasing the
size of a committee makes the committee function better.
While the IETF is unique in many ways, the staff-volunteer issue isn't all that
unique. Many organizations face this. As one example, organizations like IEEE
and ACM struggle with this. (For example, they have, over the years, delegated
many functions in conference management that used to be
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Security Area. The IESG
has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-03-12.
Hypertext
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (xmpp) working group in
the Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area of the IETF has been
rechartered. For additional information please contact the Area Directors
or the WG Chairs.
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (xmpp)
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications Area. For
additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG
Chairs.
JSON data formats for vCard and iCalendar (jcardcal)
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Chairs:
86th IETF Meeting
Orlando, FL, USA
March 10-15, 2013
Hosts: Comcast and NBCUniversal
Meeting venue: Caribe Royale http://www.cariberoyale.com
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/86/
If you would like to purchase social tickets or additional tickets for the IETF
86 Social at The
The FEC Framework (fecframe) working group in the Transport Area has
concluded. The IESG contact persons are Martin Stiemerling and Wesley
Eddy.
The FECFRAME working group has successfully finished its chartered work
and is now closed. The FECFRAME mailing list (fecfr...@ietf.org) will
remain
48 matches
Mail list logo
