Subject: [re-ECN] Congestion Exposure BoF request for Hiroshima

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:14:01 -0400

> 
> Attached is my attempt so far. I started again - I'm happy with it so 
> far, but it needs the specifics added at the end, where indicated.

   I commend Bob on what he's written. It's good, even if a bit long...

   For the last three items:
] 
] TBA: Vision. Relax transport constraints. Congestion != impairment.

   Don't bother.

] TBA: Proposed working group deliverables

   Hmm... There needs to be a specific document defining usage of bits
in an IP header. It needs to be either Experimental or Proposed Standard,
and we need to say which.

   There needs to be a document (quite possibly the same one) saying
what Congestion-Exposure-aware routers may do with these bits; and
what we expect of non-Congestion-Exposure-aware routers to NOT do.

   I'm not certain what we need beyond those, though we will need
Security Considerations somewhere.

   I expect we're looking for Experimental status; and that suggests
three deliverables: one stating usage of bits, one evaluating the
results of the experiment, and one detailing Security issues.

   I don't thing we need to list more deliverables than that in a
BoF request.

] TBA: Proposed BoF Agenda.

   Copy most anyone else's. ;^)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:42:55 +0100

John,

Thanks - this helps a lot (even tho I've said where I've not taken 
your adivce).

inline

>] TBA: Vision. Relax transport constraints. Congestion != impairment.

I've cut out vision, but still included cut-down words on the others.
(I've got the whoel thing a lot shorter, and signposted the last part 
as "Further Background", so people don't have to go there)

Relax transport constraints is what a lot of people want this for - 
one has to play to the crowd.

I find congestion = impairment is the most FAQ I get (unsurprisingly, 
given the word means that).

>what we expect of non-Congestion-Exposure-aware routers to NOT do.

I've mentioned this. Thanks.

>Security Considerations somewhere.

I don't need to mention Sec Consids - they will be within the main 
protocol spec (I've got loads and loads and loads of work on this in 
my thesis - I'll have to refer rather than include a lot of it).

>    I don't thing we need to list more deliverables than that in a

Don't think we need Sec Consids separate. But we do need "problem 
statement/requirements/motivations" as there is a lot to say about 
that, and it doesn't fit well in a protocol spec.

>] TBA: Proposed BoF Agenda.

I've cut this. It can come later.

Bob

>    Copy most anyone else's. ;^)

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research