Subject: [Tsvwg] Seeking WG feedback on draft-davie-ecn-mpls-00.txt

From: Bruce Davie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:41:15 -0400

TSVWG folks,
  Those of you who were in Monday's meeting of the WG will recall  
that I did a brief presentation on the abovementioned draft, and that  
there was a briefer discussion between me and the chairs regarding  
its suitability for the WG. I also presented it to the MPLS WG on  
Wednesday, and my impression at this point is that it is easier to  
explain the MPLS header to an ECN-savvy crowd (TSVWG) than it is to  
explain ECN to an MPLS crowd. There is no doubt that the draft will  
need to be reviewed by both groups whatever we do. My first choice  
would be to try to progress it in TSVWG (because of the resident ECN  
expertise), so I would request that those of you with an interest in  
the topic (or a desire to see it taken elsewhere) please comment to  
the tsvwg list.

Thanks

Bruce Davie

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:53:19 +0200

Bruce and all,

One comment:

During the WG discussion in Montreal, there was a comment about not  
tying the ecn-mpls doc too closely with the PCN docs. The reason  
being that we wouldn't want the ecn-mpls progress to be unnecessarily  
held back because of slower progress of PCN. And this all makes sense  
to me.
However, I had the impression (may have misheard) that it was  
suggested that to achieve this, the ecn-mpls doc should more or less  
remove references to the PCN work. I think it is useful that the ecn- 
mpls doc does discuss, as an example, how PCN requirements could be  
met. I believe this could be achieved without tying the fate of the  
two documents together.
Actually, I find the current approach of ecn-mpls is pretty much on  
track for that: I read it as presenting a fairly generic solution  
which can be used for different applications and I noticed that the  
PCN docs are already listed in the Informative References section.
So... can I assume that, while we don't want ecn-mpls progress to be  
tied with PCN progress, ecn-mpls will somehow keep describing how the  
generic approach could be used with PCN (say as an example)?

Other than that, I support progress of ECN over MPLS in IETF  
(wherever it fits best eg TSVWG).

Francois

On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Bruce Davie wrote:

> that I did a brief presentation on the abovementioned draft, and  
> that there was a briefer discussion between me and the chairs  
> regarding its suitability for the WG. I also presented it to the  
> MPLS WG on Wednesday, and my impression at this point is that it is  
> easier to explain the MPLS header to an ECN-savvy crowd (TSVWG)  
> than it is to explain ECN to an MPLS crowd. There is no doubt that  
> the draft will need to be reviewed by both groups whatever we do.  
> My first choice would be to try to progress it in TSVWG (because of  
> the resident ECN expertise), so I would request that those of you  
> with an interest in the topic (or a desire to see it taken  
> elsewhere) please comment to the tsvwg list.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce Davie
>