From nanditad@google.com Sun Jan 30 17:49:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A27E3A6B33 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:49:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0mW3eZ+Dqrxg for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A4F3A6B5A for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.79]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p0V1qBjF019311 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:11 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1296438731; bh=LOVLg/kRRFxsXIhIpYrCWtxlDAk=; h=MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Content-Type; b=VZgPldAlUwO8af/na7DEyx3MaezXgaeXXX/aJtftD3GR4AnuCpJGOemdwpm4nnGUs Coc5TLv12cwXxlACN/KOQ== Received: from qyk7 (qyk7.prod.google.com [10.241.83.135]) by kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p0V1pwdU021200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:10 -0800 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so2544910qyk.14 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=j+y61fwq0pc0RVfZ+e+R/m6/2UDLlWob14A3tD4Yt5I=; b=BAv6GBNbwkhxrxmgvRDZcgOapmi+tompeHjh26Wll0IiTK164Edyb5MAUVA38Nt673 ExUZmbwkciEc7IzmKpJg== DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=KawoOSEHz+FoaK1mnigoA0kDuqd2qnQXHq9aI+u0oleqyiMjqakGUXNHGS/tLHP6C0 VKtY8s6WZFY3238QOYOw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.47.75 with SMTP id m11mr5762010qaf.249.1296438729937; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.187.197 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:09 -0800 Message-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati To: conex@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175117aef89527049b1aa906 X-System-Of-Record: true Subject: [conex] State of the WG docs. and action items X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 01:49:00 -0000 --0015175117aef89527049b1aa906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Everyone, Here's the status of the WG docs. along with some action items for us to make forward progress. draft-mathis-conex-abstract-mech-00 Action items 1. Authors: please submit draft as WG item. 2. The content (not necessarily the text itself) of Appendix A in draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02 (ConEx Architectural Elements) should be included into mechanisms draft, while also using a terminology coherent with the rest of the draft. draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses Action items 1. The draft needs to incorporate parts of the mcdysan draft. Please see ML discussions and meeting minutes of Conex IETF-79, for specific details on the parts that need to be included and those that require further discussion. 2. The differential QoS use case requires a good amount of rewording. It's currently lacking clarity. 3. Include a use case that talks about using Conex to account for usage inequity over long time-frames. 4. Align terminology with abstract mechanism draft. Conex IPv6 format Action items (for the chairs) 1. What are the different options here, specifically the ones already expressed in the ML? 2. If we require a bit in the flow label, what is the effort required and who is willing to do it? Conex TCP modifications Action items 1. We need a draft here! Any takers? Mirja Kuhlewind, would you like to own this action item? 2. Need to figure out the dependance on Conex IPv6 format. Let's get some discussion and activity going in all of these areas! -Nandita --0015175117aef89527049b1aa906 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everyone,

Here's the status of the WG docs. along= with some action items for us to make forward progress.

draft-mathis-conex-abstract-mech-00
Action items=
1. Authors: please submit draft as WG item.
2. The content (= not necessarily the text itself) of Appendix A in draft-moncaster-conex-con= cepts-uses-02 (ConEx Architectural Elements) should be included into mechan= isms draft, while also using a terminology coherent with the rest of the dr= aft.

draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses
Action items
1. The draft needs to incorporate parts of the mcdysan draft. Plea= se see ML discussions and meeting minutes of Conex IETF-79, for specific de= tails on the parts that need to be included and those that require further = discussion.
2. The differential QoS use case requires a good amount of rewording. = It's currently lacking clarity.
3. Include a use case that ta= lks about using Conex to account for usage inequity over long time-frames.<= /div>
4. Align terminology with abstract mechanism draft.

Conex IPv6 format
Action items (for the chairs)
= 1. What are the different options here, specifically the ones already expre= ssed in the ML?
2. If we require a bit in the flow label, what is the effort required = and who is willing to do it?

Conex TCP modificatio= ns
Action items
1. We need a draft here! Any takers? Mi= rja Kuhlewind, would you like to own this action item?
2. Need to figure out the dependance on Conex IPv6 format.
=

Let's get some discus= sion and activity going in all of these areas!

-Na= ndita
--0015175117aef89527049b1aa906-- From mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de Mon Jan 31 09:57:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9773F3A6844 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:57:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.212 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cTzC-I7CFZjI for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:57:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3713A6823 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:57:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BF1633B2; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:00:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from vpn-2-cl177 (vpn-2-cl177 [10.41.21.177]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D72759A8A; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:00:46 +0100 (CET) From: Mirja Kuehlewind Organization: University of Stuttgart (Germany), IKR To: conex@ietf.org, Nandita Dukkipati Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:00:45 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20090731.1005176) References: In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201101311900.45450.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: [conex] State of the WG docs. and action items X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:57:34 -0000 Hi Nandita, I was already trying to figure out a first version of a TCP modifications=20 draft. The main issue here was the negotiation and coding of the exact ECN= =20 feedback. After some discussion we figured out that the ability to get exac= t=20 ECN feedback might be something useful for not only ConEx but e.g. also for= =20 DCTCP.=20 Thus my request to the ML: I would suggest to have a separate draft on exac= t=20 ECN feedback (maybe even in a different WG like TCPM). Any thoughts? If we have this part in a separate draft, the ConEx TCP draft might get qui= te=20 slim. The remaining part will strongly depend on this exact ECN feedback=20 draft as well as on the IPv6 coding draft, as we need to know what to do wi= th=20 the green marks (credits). Mirja On Monday 31 January 2011 02:52:09 Nandita Dukkipati wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Here's the status of the WG docs. along with some action items for us to > make forward progress. > > draft-mathis-conex-abstract-mech-00 > Action items > 1. Authors: please submit draft as WG item. > 2. The content (not necessarily the text itself) of Appendix A in > draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02 (ConEx Architectural Elements) > should be included into mechanisms draft, while also using a terminology > coherent with the rest of the draft. > > draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses > Action items > 1. The draft needs to incorporate parts of the mcdysan draft. Please see = ML > discussions and meeting minutes of Conex IETF-79, for specific details on > the parts that need to be included and those that require further > discussion. > 2. The differential QoS use case requires a good amount of rewording. It's > currently lacking clarity. > 3. Include a use case that talks about using Conex to account for usage > inequity over long time-frames. > 4. Align terminology with abstract mechanism draft. > > Conex IPv6 format > Action items (for the chairs) > 1. What are the different options here, specifically the ones already > expressed in the ML? > 2. If we require a bit in the flow label, what is the effort required and > who is willing to do it? > > Conex TCP modifications > Action items > 1. We need a draft here! Any takers? Mirja Kuhlewind, would you like to o= wn > this action item? > 2. Need to figure out the dependance on Conex IPv6 format. > > Let's get some discussion and activity going in all of these areas! > > -Nandita =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------ Dipl.-Ing. Mirja K=FChlewind Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR) University of Stuttgart, Germany Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart tel: +49(0)711/685-67973 email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de =2D------------------------------------------------------------------