Subject: [conex] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.txt

From: David Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:01:58 +0200

Hi all, 

we submitted a new draft describing potential definitions of credit and credit handling in the audit. 
This is meant as basis for discussion and we would appreciate feedback, hopefully leading to final definition of credit in the abstract-mech document soon. 

David and Mirja

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.txt
From: [email-masked]
To: David Wagner <[email-masked]>, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:58:23 -0700

A new version of I-D, draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by David Wagner and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-wagner-conex-credit
Revision:	 00
Title:		 ConEx Crediting and Auditing
Creation date:	 2013-07-12
Group:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 11
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wagner-conex-credit-00.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wagner-conex-credit
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wagner-conex-credit-00

Abstract:
   Congestion Exposure (ConEx) is a mechanism by which senders inform
   the network about the congestion encountered by previous packets on
   the same flow.  In order to make ConEx information useful, reliable
   auditing is necessary to provide a strong incentive to declare ConEx
   information honestly.  However, there is always a delay between
   congestion events and the respective ConEx signal at the audit.  To
   avoid state and complex Round-Trip Time estimations at the audit, in
   [draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech] it is proposed to use credit signals
   sent in advance to cover potential congestion in the next feedback
   delay duration.  Unfortunately, introducing credit does not provide
   incentives to honestly report congestion.  This document lists
   potential issues regarding the proposed crediting and discusses
   potential solutions approaches to interpret and handle credits at the
   audit.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:44:17 -0400

> and credit handling in the audit. 

   This strikes me as a good idea -- there has been confusion about that,
and having a separate draft will probably aid discussion here.

> Abstract:

   Let me comment on the Abstract before I read the whole draft...

>  the same flow.

   This indeed is the way we define ConEx.

>  In order to make ConEx information useful, reliable auditing is
>  necessary to provide a strong incentive to declare ConEx
>  information honestly.

   I personally disagree with this statement. (I'd be happy to go into
why I disagree; but I don't think this is the right email to do so.)

>  However, there is always a delay between congestion events and
>  the respective ConEx signal at the audit. To avoid state and
>  complex Round-Trip Time estimations at the audit, in

   That text belongs in an Introduction.

   IMHO, the Abstract should limit itself to something like:
" 
" The ConEx Working Group is designing an audit mechanism to test
" whether congestion encountered is being honestly reported by the
" sender. This mechanism involves "credit" markings for possible
" congestion not yet encountered. This document discusses issues
" regarding such credit markings.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: David Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:50:04 +0200

Hi John, 

thanks for your comment, I will take it into account. Less might be better in the abstract, but I'd like to have the audit mentioned already here. 

What don't you like in the motivation for ConEx auditing? 
I'd also like to hear your comments on the ConEx crediting alternatives themselves. Or your solution. 

David