Subject: [conex] I-D Action: draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:43:24 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Congestion Exposure Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : ConEx Concepts and Use Cases
	Author(s)       : Bob Briscoe
                          Richard Woundy
                          Alissa Cooper
	Filename        : draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2011-10-25

   This document provides the entry point to the set of documentation
   about the Congestion Exposure (ConEx) protocol.  It explains the
   motivation for including a ConEx field at the IP layer: to expose
   information about congestion to network nodes.  Although such
   information may have a number of uses, this document focuses on how
   the information communicated in the ConEx field can serve as the
   basis for significantly more efficient and effective traffic
   management than what exists on the Internet today.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:50:14 +0100

A new version of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses has been submitted: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt. There have been significant changes since the -02 (probably too many to enumerate in a list here), all with an eye toward making the document simpler and easier to understand, but the core ideas from the -02 remain.

The editors have a few outstanding issues that we will be raising for discussion on the mailing list, but for now we are looking forward to your reviews and feedback.

Alissa

On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:43 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

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

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:25:23 -0400

Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> A new version of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses has been submitted...

   My congratulations!

   Alissa seems to have had many of the same arguments with Bob that
I used to have -- and she prevailed!

   I will send Alissa some purely editorial suggestions: she should
share them with the other editors as appropriate.

> The editors have a few outstanding issues that we will be raising
> for discussion on the mailing list, but for now we are looking
> forward to your reviews and feedback.

   I have several issues which deserve discussion here.

   concepts-uses still ventures farther into mechanism than I'd wish:

   - "the ConEx Field" implies mechanism; I suggest "ConEx marking".

   - "Congestion" vs. "Congestion Volume" needs work. I think I'll do
     a separate email on that.

   - "Network provider (or operator)" doesn't work as a definition:
     I suggest defining "Network Operator (or Provider), and fixing
     the various places which use these words ambiguously.

   - The "User" definiton hides something a bit counter-intuitive:
     that the sending user is known in some places, the receiving
     user in others, and neither is knowable in the middle. While
     the definiton here is probably as good as we can get, I'm
     afraid our readers will be confused.

   - "Congestion Policer" is not defined.

   - In Section 3.1, the general-case description of policer (the
     second paragraph) is describing mechanism better left to a
     different I-D. OTOH, the fourth and fifth paragraph are an
     example appropriate for this document (especially since it
     is the case found in our Charter).

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:42:15 -0400

Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

   This I-D defines "Congestion" and "Congestion Volume". While the
definitions are mostly right IMHO, there are inevitable problems as
the terms are used later in the document.

   Inevitably we must use "level of congestion" in a few places.
Which does it refer to? I'd argue that it's not always one or the
other. In some places it's clearly bytes-on-the-wire dropped; in
others it's clearly percentage of packets dropped. I'd recommend
that we clarify that "level of congestion" may have different
meanings in different places along the path.

   Also, we use "quotas" in a few places. The implementation of
quotas, IMHO, is unlikely to be the same everywhere. Some quotas
will count packets regardless of size; others may count bytes,
but are likely to count bytes differently: I doubt we can expect
the count to be bytes-on-the-wire consistently.

   In IPv6, bytes-on-the-wire can differ considerably from bytes
of payload, and I would expect some users to argue that they
shouldn't be charged for anything beyond payload. As an ISP, I
know "winning" such arguments is Pyrrhic.

   (This much should suffice for starting the discussion. ;^)