Subject: [conex] comments on draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:29:38 +0800

I have a few small comments on draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02.  
Overall I think the split between use cases and mechanism is working  
well.

Section 1:
It seems a little odd to have a UK-specific reference (to Ofcom data)  
about broadband speeds when multi-country data exists (e.g., OECD: http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html) 
.

"Congestion generally results from the interaction of traffic from one  
network operator's users with traffic from other users."
While this is the main focus I think it discounts users self- 
congesting a bit too much. Maybe something like "Much congestion  
results..." would be a little more accurate.

Section 5.5
Since it's not immediately obvious how conex can be used for QoS, I  
think this use case could benefit from more explanation. There was  
some confusion about it which was clarified on the list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex/current/threads.html#00127 
), but that doesn't seem to have been reflected in the draft.

Section 5.6
Seems like this should be named "Congestion Settlements" or something  
similar. The partial vs. full deployment question is one that may have  
to be addressed by some subset of use cases, not only this one.

Alissa

---

From: "Toby Moncaster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:36:38 -0000

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for taking time to comment on the draft.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 06 November 2010 10:30
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [conex] comments on draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02
> 
> about broadband speeds when multi-country data exists (e.g., OECD:
> http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,0
> 0.html)
> .

Thanks, useful reference. OfCom reference is indeed rather too UK-specific

> results..." would be a little more accurate.

Fair point, although in practise once one is beyond the home-gateway there
is very little chance that you are the only traffic (in other words whilst
you might be fighting yourself for capacity, there are almost certainly
other people also fighting for that same capacity). Would "In general,
congestion results..." or "Most congestion results..." seem reasonable?

> some confusion about it which was clarified on the list
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex/current/threads.html#00127

This use case is certainly going to get some extensive re-writing. In effect
what [Policing Freedom to Use the Internet Resource Pool, Jacquet, Briscoe,
Moncaster, 2008] shows is that the user can synthesise something similar to
QoS by prioritising their own traffic within a set of bounds imposed by the
operator.

> to be addressed by some subset of use cases, not only this one.

Sounds a good name... And partial vs. full deployment is a significant issue
for ConEx as a whole (I would expect some of the discussions relating to
that to move to the mechanism document).

Toby

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