Subject: [PCN] New Version: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:13:28 +0000

Hi,

As of a couple of weeks ago, this became a tsvwg wg item. I posted an 
-00 then, but I've just posted a corrected -01.

I'd appreciate review comments as this is effectively a (minor) 
change to IP forwarding, so there could be weird dependencies I've 
not thought of (I've tried my hardest to make sure there aren't).

The top level questions I'd like to pose for reviewers are:

Q1. I've convinced myself no harm to any existing mechanisms would 
result if I made the proposed new decapsualtion behaviour in Appendix 
C normative for standards track. Do you agree? Have I missed anything?

Q2. I'm planning on splitting this into two docs as it's trying to 
cover two different scopes:
1/ Stand's track: define specific changes to IP in IP tunnelling of ECN
2/ Informational: give guidelines on how to design encapsulation of 
congestion notification by general L2 protocols (e.g. Ethernet etc).

As it stands, a reader in a hurry could mistake guidelines for 
encapsulating IP in ethernet etc as instructions for how to implement 
standard IP in IP tunnelling. Do people agree I should avoid having 
two different scopes in the same doc?

Cheers

Bob

>From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01
>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:05:28 -0700
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2008 18:05:35.0563 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[9C35E9B0:01C9385E]
>X-Spam-Score: 0 ()
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
>
>
>A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01.txt has been 
>successfuly submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the IETF repository.
>
>Filename:       draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel
>Revision:       01
>Title:          Layered Encapsulation of Congestion Notification
>Creation_date:  2008-10-27
>WG ID:          tsvwg
>Number_of_pages: 37
>
>Abstract:
>This document redefines how the explicit congestion notification
>(ECN) field of the outer IP header of a tunnel should be constructed.
>It brings all IP in IP tunnels (v4 or v6) into line with the way
>IPsec tunnels now construct the ECN field.  It includes a thorough
>analysis of the reasoning for this change and the implications.  It
>also gives guidelines on the encapsulation of IP congestion
>notification by any outer header, whether encapsulated in an IP
>tunnel or in a lower layer header.  Following these guidelines should
>help interworking, if the IETF or other standards bodies specify any
>new encapsulation of congestion notification.
> 
>
>
>
>The IETF Secretariat.

____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, <[email-masked]>      Networks Research Centre, BT Research
B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    +44 1473 645196 

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn