Subject: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00.txt

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:51:19 +0200

Dear all,

Following my presentation to, and the related discussion in TSVWG in BA:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-tsvwg-13.pdf
we have split the ABE draft ( draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-ecn ) into two documents:

1) a document that only makes the necessary update to RFC3168 to allow a reaction to ECN that differs from the reaction to loss:
This is draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response, with details below.

2) a document that only contains the concrete change to TCP that we suggest (the new multiplication factor):
This is draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn, which I also just posted.

Please read and discuss item 1 here in TSVWG - thanks!!   :)

Cheers,
Michael (on behalf of the ABE authors)

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00.txt
> Date: 31 May 2016 14:37:11 CEST
> To: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>, Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>, Naeem Khademi <[email-masked]>, Godred Fairhurst <[email-masked]>, Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
> Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Michael Welzl and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response
> Revision:	00
> Title:		Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Congestion Control Response
> Document date:	2016-05-31
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		10
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   RFC3168 and RFC4774 state that, upon the receipt by an ECN-Capable
>   transport of a single CE packet, the congestion control algorithms
>   followed at the end-systems MUST be essentially the same as the
>   congestion control response to a single dropped packet.  This
>   document relaxes this rule in order to encourage experimentation with
>   different backoff strategies.  This sender-side update makes it
>   possible to achieve greater benefits with ECN, encouraging wider ECN
>   deployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
>