From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Fri Mar 10 12:19:22 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26758 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA38056 for ecm-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:13:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from breeze.lcs.mit.edu (breeze.lcs.mit.edu [18.31.0.83]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA38051 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:13:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hari@breeze.lcs.mit.edu) Received: from breeze.lcs.mit.edu (hari@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by breeze.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26481; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:17:56 -0500 Message-Id: <200003101717.MAA26481@breeze.lcs.mit.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 X-url: http://wind.lcs.mit.edu/~hari/ From: Hari Balakrishnan Reply-to: Hari Balakrishnan To: ecm@aciri.org cc: vern@ee.lbl.gov, sob@harvard.edu Subject: New Congestion Manager draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed ; boundary="==_Exmh_574710660" Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:17:56 -0500 Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart MIME message. --==_Exmh_574710660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Please find attached the new CM I-D taking all the comments from the DC IETF into account. Most of the changes relate to wordsmithing and to fixing small bugs. No serious changes from the previous version. The group charter says that two documents are due for proposed standard status: 1. A conformant CM congestion manager. (presumably by this is meant the behavior of the congestion *controller*, how it obtains feedback, and what it does with the feedback) 2. An abstract API description. Srini and I thought a lot about it and decided to leave it as one. The reason is that item 1 by itself doesn't have that much meat in it. The reason is that the behavior of the congestion controller is governed by TCP-compatibility (cf Sally's draft), how it obtains feedback is detailed in the API as it is an API issue, and what it does internally with the feedback is not really specifiable (anything that maintains tcp-compatibility is pretty much OK). The congestion controller also exports a standard internal API to a scheduler, and while that is important, there isn't all that much to write about it (less than a page). Comments? Thanks, Hari --==_Exmh_574710660 Content-Type: text/plain ; name="draft-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt"; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: draft-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode begin 664 draft-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt M26YT97)N970@16YG:6YE97)I;F<@5&%S:R!&;W)C92`@("`@("`@("`@("`@ M("`@("`@("`@2&%R:2!"86QA:W)I'!I2!A M9&%P="!T;R!N971W;W)K#0H@("!C;VYG97-T:6]N+B!4:&ES($--(&9R86UE M=V]R:R!I;G1E9W)A=&5S(&-O;F=E'!O2!I M;F9O2!C;W)R97-P;VYDF5S(&]F(&%L;"!H M96%D97)S(&%N9"!D871A(&5X8V5P="!T:&4@25`-"B`@("`@("`@:&5A9&5R M+@T*#0H@("!#3TY'15-424].(%=)3D1/5R`H8W=N9"D-"B`@("`@("`@02!# M32!S=&%T92!V87)I86)L92!T:&%T(&UO9'5L871EF4@;V8@=&AE('-E M;F1E"P@9F]L;&]W:6YG($,@;&%N9W5A9V4@8V]N=F5N=&EO;BX- M"@T*#0HS+B`@("`@($EN=')O9'5C=&EO;@T*#0H@("!4:&4@0TT@:7,@86X@ M96YD+7-Y2!T=V\@ M;6%I;B!G;V%L2!L;V=I8V%L;'D@9&EF9F5R96YT(&9L;W=S('-H87)E('1H90T*("`@ M2!C;VUP971E#0H@("!W:71H M(&5A8V@@;W1H97(@9F]R(&YE='=O2X@1G5R=&AE0T*("`@=&\@;F5T=V]R:R!C;VYG97-T M:6]N+B!">2!I;7!L96UE;G1I;F<@82!S=&%B;&4@8V]N=')O;"!A;&=O'!O2!A<'!L:6-A=&EO;@T*("`@861A<'1A=&EO;B!T;R!C M;VYG97-T:6]N+B`@07!P;&EC871I;VYS(&%D87!T('1H92!D871A('1H97D- M"B`@('1R86YS;6ET('1O('1H92!C=7)R96YT(&YE='=O2!I;7!R;W9E2!C;VUM;VX@86YD(&]F=&5N#0H@("!D;R!N M;W0@:6UP;&5M96YT('!R;W!E2(@6TUA=&AI("`@("`@("`@('P@ M("`@("`@("`@("`@('P-"B`@("`@("!\("`@("`@("`@('P@("`@("`@("!\ M("!\("`@("`@('P@('P@("`@("`@("`@?"`@(%-C:&5D=6QE("`@?"`@("`@(%X@("!\ M("`@("`@("`@("`@("!\("`@("`@("!\("`@?"`@('PM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM M+7P-"B`@("`@('P@("!\("`@("`@?"`@('P@("`@("`@("`@("`@('P@("`@ M("`@('P@4"!\+2T^?"`@("`@("`@("`@("`@?`T*("`@("`@?"`@('P@("`@ M("!\("`@?"`@("`@("`@("`@("`@?"`@("`@("`@?"`@('P@("!\("`@("`@ M("`@("`@("!\#0H@("`@("!\+2TM?"TM+2TM+2LM+2U\+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM M+2U\+2TM+2TM+3Y\("`@?"`@('P@($-O;F=EF4Z(&-M7VUT=2AI,S(@8VU? M9FQO=VED*2!R971U2P@=&AI6YA;6EC86QL>2!A9&%P="!T:&5I0T*("`@=&AE(&-O;F=E2!T M;R!B90T*("`@&-L=61I;F<@ M=&AE($E0(&AE861E2!T M;R!A9&%P="!T;PT*("`@=6YE>'!E8W1E9"!N971W;W)K(&-H86YG97,@870@ M=&AE(&QA2!R871E(&-H86YG92P@ M=VAI8V@@:7,@:&%R9"!T;R!D;R!O;F-E('1H92!D871A#0H@("!H87,@8F5E M;B!B=69F97)E9"X@($$@6QE M#0H@("!!4$D@:7,@=&AE(')E8V]M;65N9&5D(&-H;VEC92!F;W(@04Q&+6)A M6QE+B`@5&AE(&%B;W9E M(&-A;&QB86-K+6)A6YC:')O;F]U2!S=')E86US('1H870@87)E#0H@("`B2!R971A:6X@ M=&AE:7(@;W)I9VEN86P-"B`@('1I;65R+6)A'!R97-S('1H92!P97)I;V1I8VET>2!A;F0@9W)A;G5L87)I M='D@;V8@:71S(&-A;&QB86-K'!O&-E960I('1H M92!A;&QO=V5D(')A=&4N("!/9B!C;W5R2!C:&]O2!S=&%G92!I;B!I=',@ M97AE8W5T:6]N+@T*("`@26X@2!W:&5N('1H92!R871E#0H@("!D96-R96%S M97,@=&\@;&5S3L@=&AI6YC:')O;F]U6YC:')O;F]U2!B M>71E71E2!A="!A#0H@("!M86-R;V9L;W<@:7,@8V]N&ES="X-"@T*("`@5&AE(&1E9F%U;'0@86=G'!O2!T:&5M+@T*#0H@("`U+C$@0V]N9V5S=&EO;B!C;VYT2!V:7-I8FQE('1O(&%P<&QI8V%T M:6]N0T*("`@87)E('=I=&AI;B!T:&4@8V]N=&5X="!O9B!A(&UA M8W)O9FQO=RDZ#0H-"B`@("T@=F]I9"!Q=65R>2AU-C0@*G)A=&4L('4S,B`J M2AU,S(@;G-E;G0I.B!4 M:&ES(&9U;F-T:6]N($U54U0@8F4@=7-E9"!T;R!N;W1I9GD@=&AE#0H@("`@ M(&-O;F=E71E71E71E5]S M:&%R92AI,S(@8VU?9FQO=VED*3H@5&AI2!A;@T*("`@("!A<'!L:6-A=&EO;B=S(&-M7W%U97)Y*"D@ M2AU,S(@;G-E;G0I.B!4:&ES M(&EN=&5R9F%C92!I2!T:&4-"B`@("`@71E&%M M<&QE(&%P<&QI8V%T:6]N2!40U`@8F%S960@;VX@9F%S="!R971R86YS;6ES2!R971R86YS;6ES2!R='0@97-T:6UA=&4@=&AA="!IF4L(#,@*B!A=F=?<&MT7W-I>F4L#0H@ M("`@($--7U1204Y3245.5"P@60Y.6)=*2P@ M5$-0(&%SF4L($--7TY/3$]34RP@7!I8V%L(&%U9&EO(&%P<&QI8V%T:6]N(&]F=&5N(&AA6EN9R!T&-E960@=&AE2!T:&4@2!B92!T5]S:&%R92@I.B!24E]S8VAE9"!R971U2@I M.B!24E]S8VAE9"!D;V5S(&YO=&AI;F2!G:79I;F<@0TT@ M82!H:6=H(&5S=&EM871E(&]F#0H@("!C;VYG97-T:6]N+"!A;B!A='1A8VME M2!A9V=R97-S:79E(&%N9"!A;&QO=PT*("`@ M9&%T82!T;R!B92!S96YT(&UU8V@@;6]R92!Q=6EC:VQY('1H86X@BP@4BXL(")40U`@0F5H879I M;W(@;V8@82!"=7-Y(%=E8B!397)V97(Z#0H@("`@("!!;F%L>7-I60L(%,N(&%N9"!(96YD97)S;VXL(%0N M+"`B5&AE($YE=U)E;F\@36]D:69I8V%T:6]N#0H@("`@("!T;R!40U`G2PB#0H@("`@("!21D,M,3$Y,2P@3F]V M96UB97(@,3DY,"X-"@T*("`@6U!A9&UA;F%B:&%N.3A=(%!A9&UA;F%B:&%N M+"!6+BP@(D%D9')E60L(%,N+"`B02!02!&;&]Y9"P@36%R:R!(86YD M;&5Y+"!3=&5V92!-8T-A;FYE+"!A;F0@5F5R;B!087AS;VX-"B`@(&9O2!#=7)T:7,L(&%N9`T*("`@2&%R:6AA M2!F;W(@ M0V]M<'5T97(@4V-I96YC90T*("`@-30U(%1E8VAN;VQO9WD@4W%U87)E#0H@ M("!-87-S86-H=7-E='1S($EN'!L86EN#0H@("!I="!O M2!B92!P2!R96UO=FEN9R!T:&4@8V]P M>7)I9VAT(&YO=&EC92!O2!O&-E<'0@87,@;F5E9&5D(&9O; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 04:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA42384 for ecm-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:53:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov (daffy.ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.31]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA42379 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:53:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov) Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2B9uIG00594; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:56:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200003110956.e2B9uIG00594@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> To: ecm@aciri.org Subject: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:56:18 PST From: Vern Paxson Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk This is a working group last call for publishing draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as a BCP. The last call will expire Saturday, March 25, though if there's a discussion thread going on at that time, the last call will be extended to a week beyond the end of the Adelaide IETF meeting. Please give the document a final check and send along any comments you have. Thanks, Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sat Mar 11 20:47:22 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23795 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA49007 for ecm-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:42:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from verdi.jlc.net (verdi.jlc.net [199.201.159.1]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA49002 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:42:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@verdi.jlc.net) Received: (from john@localhost) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) id UAA48194; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:44:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:44:50 -0500 From: John Leslie To: Vern Paxson Cc: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Message-ID: <20000311204450.A47070@verdi.jlc.net> References: <200003110956.e2B9uIG00594@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200003110956.e2B9uIG00594@daffy.ee.lbl.gov>; from vern@ee.lbl.gov on Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:56:18AM -0800 Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:56:18AM -0800, Vern Paxson wrote: > > This is a working group last call for publishing draft-floyd-cong-01.txt > as a BCP... > Please give the document a final check and send along any comments > you have. The document looks just fine, but I don't see how we can call it a BCP. It really doesn't describe any "practice". Granted, the BCP process is vague: (quoting BCP 1): ] ] The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The ] BCP is submitted to the IESG for review, and the existing ] review process applies, including a "last call" on the IETF ] announcement mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved ] the document, the process ends and the document is published. ] The resulting document is viewed as having the technical ] approval of the IETF, but it is not, and cannot become an ] official Internet Standard. BCPs, in my experience, have been a temporary terminal point: we know a problem exists; we don't feel any progress is imminent; and we want to publish how we deal with it, because that way seems "good enough". Granted, we're all busy, but it seems really premature (IMHO) to say no progress on congestion management is expected. I think we should continue on towards an Internet Standard; and publish this as an informational RFC. -- John Leslie From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sat Mar 11 20:55:36 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26254 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA49066 for ecm-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:52:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from ee.lbl.gov (ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.10]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA49061 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:52:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@ee.lbl.gov) Received: (from vern@localhost) by ee.lbl.gov (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2C1tIU06449; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:55:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200003120155.e2C1tIU06449@ee.lbl.gov> To: "john@verdi.jlc.net" Cc: ecm@aciri.org, sob@harvard.edu Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:44:50 EST. Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:55:18 PST From: Vern Paxson Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk > The document looks just fine, but I don't see how we can call it a BCP. > It really doesn't describe any "practice". Seems to me in fact it does: the practice is that transport protocols must include congestion control. Compare with the recent ingress filtering BCP, directed broadcasts (RFC 2644), or how to enhance TCP for satellites (RFC 2488). > BCPs, in my experience, have been a temporary terminal point: we > know a problem exists; we don't feel any progress is imminent; and > we want to publish how we deal with it, because that way seems "good > enough". I view them differently - they are closer to statements of current IETF policies & recommendations. The "current" is because policy/recommendations can change, not because we don't expect things to change any time soon. I've cc'd Scott Bradner, as ECM AD, and also author of RFC 2026 (which defines BCP) for his hit on this. Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sat Mar 11 21:11:04 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00586 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA49140 for ecm-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:08:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA49135 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:08:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03168; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:10:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:10:34 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bradner Message-Id: <200003120210.VAA03168@newdev.harvard.edu> To: john@verdi.jlc.net, vern@ee.lbl.gov Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Cc: ecm@aciri.org, sob@harvard.edu Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk > I view them differently - they are closer to statements of current IETF > policies & recommendations. The "current" is because policy/recommendations > can change, not because we don't expect things to change any time soon. this is what I have in mind when talking about BCPs (I'd just as soon think that BCP does not imply a quick change because I'd just as not open up rfc2026 for a while :_) ) Scott From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sat Mar 11 23:19:07 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08680 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:19:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA49633 for ecm-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:15:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from verdi.jlc.net (verdi.jlc.net [199.201.159.1]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA49628 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:15:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@verdi.jlc.net) Received: (from john@localhost) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) id XAA50008; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:17:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:17:52 -0500 From: John Leslie To: Scott Bradner Cc: vern@ee.lbl.gov, ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Message-ID: <20000311231752.A48547@verdi.jlc.net> References: <200003120210.VAA03168@newdev.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200003120210.VAA03168@newdev.harvard.edu>; from sob@harvard.edu on Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:10:34PM -0500 Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk (I've restored context -- note the ]'s) On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:10:34PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: ] Vern Paxson wrote: ]] John Leslie wrote: ]] ]]> BCPs, in my experience, have been a temporary terminal point: we ]]> know a problem exists; we don't feel any progress is imminent; and ]]> we want to publish how we deal with it, because that way seems "good ]]> enough". > >> I view them differently - they are closer to statements of current IETF >> policies & recommendations. Sad... to think the IESG has come to view it as its job to set "policy" at each meeting. :^( >> The "current" is because policy/recommendations can change, not because >> we don't expect things to change any time soon. Sad... to think that policies should be expected to change on short notice. :^( > this is what I have in mind when talking about BCPs (I'd just as soon > think that BCP does not imply a quick change because I'd just as not > open up rfc2026 for a while :_) ) I'm not sure I understand Scott's point. RFC 2026 was written in 1996, and I don't know anybody who wants to change it. The relevant part would seem to be: ] 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs ] ] The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to ] standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A ] BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as ] standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF ] community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking ] on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way ] to perform some operations or IETF process function. (which suggests to me substantially more than issuing a "Last-Call" and a quick IESG vote.) ] Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with ] the technical specifications for hardware and software required for ] computer communication across interconnected networks. However, ] since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great ] variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user ] service requires that the operators and administrators of the ] Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. ] While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style ] from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process ] for consensus building. Doesn't this suggest that BCPs should include guidelines for humans, rather than algorithms for computers? I believe our charter is closer to the latter. ] Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived ] at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care. ] Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger ] Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable ] for a content different from Informational RFCs. I still maintain that the document cited is written in the style of an Informational RFC (and fulfils that function well). -- John Leslie From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sat Mar 11 23:27:23 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10387 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA49679 for ecm-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:24:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA49674 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:24:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03446; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:27:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:27:09 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bradner Message-Id: <200003120427.XAA03446@newdev.harvard.edu> To: john@jlc.net, sob@harvard.edu Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Cc: ecm@aciri.org, vern@ee.lbl.gov Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk > Doesn't this suggest that BCPs should include guidelines for humans, > rather than algorithms for computers? I believe our charter is closer > to the latter. if you take a look at the types of documents that have been given BCP status you will see that BCPs are not just "guidelines for humans" but in any case, BCPs get IETF last-called - if a reasonable portion of the IETF community does not think it should be a BCP then it will not become one - so if this document gets last-called for BCP you can object to the designation if you think that it is the wrong one Scott From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sun Mar 12 04:31:33 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02956 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA50816 for ecm-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:26:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from ee.lbl.gov (ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.10]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA50811 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:26:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@ee.lbl.gov) Received: (from vern@localhost) by ee.lbl.gov (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2C9T2G10533; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:29:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200003120929.e2C9T2G10533@ee.lbl.gov> To: "john@verdi.jlc.net" Cc: Scott Bradner , ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:17:52 EST. Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:29:02 PST From: Vern Paxson Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk > On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:10:34PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: > ] Vern Paxson wrote: > ]] John Leslie wrote: > ]] > ]]> BCPs, in my experience, have been a temporary terminal point: we > ]]> know a problem exists; we don't feel any progress is imminent; and > ]]> we want to publish how we deal with it, because that way seems "good > ]]> enough". > > > >> I view them differently - they are closer to statements of current IETF > >> policies & recommendations. > > Sad... to think the IESG has come to view it as its job to set "policy" > at each meeting. :^( ?? I don't understand this comment. The IESG was not involved in the decision to propose publishing this document as BCP, and it doesn't have anything to do with the previous or pending IETF meetings. I had noted that I was thinking the document should be BCP in email to the working group a month ago, and that didn't elicit any comments. > >> The "current" is because policy/recommendations can change, not because > >> we don't expect things to change any time soon. > > Sad... to think that policies should be expected to change on short > notice. :^( The logic here is inverted. I'm saying that "current" doesn't have to do with such an expectation; I'm *not* saying that there *is* an expectation to change things on short notice. Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sun Mar 12 12:04:29 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07839 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:04:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA53500 for ecm-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:00:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from NOD.RESTON.MCI.NET (nod.Reston.mci.net [166.45.6.38]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA53495 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:00:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul@MCI.NET) Received: from 10.0.1.6 ([166.45.6.251]) by shoe.reston.mci.net (PMDF V5.2-32 #40475) with ESMTP id <01JMY0UCL09U91VRR5@shoe.reston.mci.net> for ecm@aciri.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:03:20 EST Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:03:18 -0800 From: Paul Krumviede Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP In-reply-to: <200003120155.e2C1tIU06449@ee.lbl.gov> To: Vern Paxson , "john@verdi.jlc.net" Cc: ecm@aciri.org, sob@harvard.edu Message-id: <3664025974.952851798@[10.0.1.6]> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.0b11 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT --On Saturday, 11 March, 2000 17:55 -0800 Vern Paxson wrote: >> The document looks just fine, but I don't see how we can call it a >> BCP. It really doesn't describe any "practice". > > Seems to me in fact it does: the practice is that transport protocols > must include congestion control. Perhaps this statement should be made more explicit? The closest I see is "the continued use of end-to-end congestion control by best-effort traffic is critical for maintaining the stability of the Internet." There have been occasional arguments that certain applications need new transport protocols, and some of these discussions have featured claims that they will be for low traffic volume applications, and thus don't need congestion control (e.g. RADIUS). A more explicit statement, along the lines of Vern's statement above, might be desirable if we are making a statement about practices. -paul From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sun Mar 12 22:39:30 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14428 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA56504 for ecm-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:34:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn (sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.64.222]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA56499 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:34:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wuwei@sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn) Received: from wuwei ([166.111.64.237]) by sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA213; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:49:15 +0800 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:37:45 +0800 From: wuwei@sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn (Wuwei) To: "hari@breeze.lcs.mit.edu" CC: "ecm@aciri.org" Subject: Re: New Congestion Manager draft X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 2 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US_ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20000313034915032.AAA213@wuwei> Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,Prof Hari Balakrishnan, I am new comer to this IETF working group,ecm. I am sorry if I bother you. I received a letter you posted to this maillist with attachment draft (draft-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt). But I can't read that draft for it's not like a .txt file. Would you please send me the draft to my mailbox again? I will appreciate your help. Thanks! wuwei wuwei@sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Sun Mar 12 22:45:29 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16258 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA56539 for ecm-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:41:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from breeze.lcs.mit.edu (breeze.lcs.mit.edu [18.31.0.83]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA56534 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:41:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hari@breeze.lcs.mit.edu) Received: from breeze.lcs.mit.edu (hari@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by breeze.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA31761 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:46:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200003130346.WAA31761@breeze.lcs.mit.edu> Reply-To: Hari Balakrishnan X-url: http://wind.lcs.mit.edu/~hari/ To: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: New Congestion Manager draft In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:37:45 +0800" <20000313034915032.AAA213@wuwei> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:46:07 -0500 From: Hari Balakrishnan Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk It is available from http://wind.lcs.mit.edu/papers/draft-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt Hari On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:37:45 +0800, you wrote: > > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:37:45 +0800 > To: "hari@breeze.lcs.mit.edu" > cc: "ecm@aciri.org" > From: wuwei@sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn (Wuwei) > Subject: Re: New Congestion Manager draft > > Return-Path: wuwei@sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn > Delivery-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:39:42 -0500 > X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 2 [cn] > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Hi,Prof Hari Balakrishnan, > > I am new comer to this IETF working group,ecm. I am sorry if I bother y > ou. I received a letter you posted to this maillist with attachment draft (draf > t-balakrishnan-cm-02.txt). But I can't read that draft for it's not like a .txt > file. Would you please send me the draft to my mailbox again? I will appreciat > e your help. > Thanks! > > > wuwei > wuwei@sdp.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn > From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Mon Mar 13 15:06:23 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10105 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:06:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA61659 for ecm-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:02:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from verdi.jlc.net (verdi.jlc.net [199.201.159.1]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA61654 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:02:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@verdi.jlc.net) Received: (from john@localhost) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) id PAA82487; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:05:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:05:02 -0500 From: John Leslie To: Vern Paxson Cc: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Message-ID: <20000313150502.A81209@verdi.jlc.net> References: <200003120929.e2C9T2G10533@ee.lbl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200003120929.e2C9T2G10533@ee.lbl.gov>; from vern@ee.lbl.gov on Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:29:02AM -0800 Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:29:02AM -0800, Vern Paxson wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:10:34PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: >>] Vern Paxson wrote: >>]] John Leslie wrote: >>]] >>]]> BCPs, in my experience, have been a temporary terminal point: we >>]]> know a problem exists; we don't feel any progress is imminent; and >>]]> we want to publish how we deal with it, because that way seems "good >>]]> enough". >>> >>>> I view them differently - they are closer to statements of current IETF >>>> policies & recommendations. >> >> Sad... to think the IESG has come to view it as its job to set "policy" >> at each meeting. :^( > > ?? I don't understand this comment. I meant that IESG -- the Internet Engineering Steering Group -- never used to think it their job to _determine_ policy, least of all based on a single vote at a single meeting. > The IESG was not involved in the decision to propose publishing this > document as BCP, and it doesn't have anything to do with the previous > or pending IETF meetings. I'll take your word for that. > I had noted that I was thinking the document should be BCP in email to > the working group a month ago, I went searching for that, and didn't find it. :^( Which list was it sent to? > and that didn't elicit any comments. I didn't comment because I didn't see it. I can't speak for anyone else. >>>> The "current" is because policy/recommendations can change, not because >>>> we don't expect things to change any time soon. >> >> Sad... to think that policies should be expected to change on short >> notice. :^( > > The logic here is inverted. I'm saying that "current" doesn't have to do > with such an expectation; I'm *not* saying that there *is* an expectation > to change things on short notice. I'm not saying either of those -- I'm saying that I think it a bad idea to publish a BCP if we _do_ expect things to change soon. -- John Leslie From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Fri Mar 17 03:21:41 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27865 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:21:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA86858 for ecm-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:14:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov (daffy.ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.31]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA86853 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:14:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov) Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2H8HDo17600; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:17:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200003170817.e2H8HDo17600@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> To: John Leslie Cc: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:05:02 PST. Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:17:13 PST From: Vern Paxson Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk > >> Sad... to think the IESG has come to view it as its job to set "policy" > >> at each meeting. :^( > > > > ?? I don't understand this comment. > > I meant that IESG -- the Internet Engineering Steering Group -- never > used to think it their job to _determine_ policy, least of all based on > a single vote at a single meeting. Hmmm, that hasn't helped my understanding. Which policy are you referring to, and which single vote at which single meeting? > > The IESG was not involved in the decision to propose publishing this > > document as BCP, and it doesn't have anything to do with the previous > > or pending IETF meetings. > > I'll take your word for that. Cool. > > I had noted that I was thinking the document should be BCP in email to > > the working group a month ago, > > I went searching for that, and didn't find it. :^( Which list was it > sent to? Appended. > > The logic here is inverted. I'm saying that "current" doesn't have to do > > with such an expectation; I'm *not* saying that there *is* an expectation > > to change things on short notice. > > I'm not saying either of those -- I'm saying that I think it a bad idea > to publish a BCP if we _do_ expect things to change soon. Okay, I don't think that applies in this case, as I believe the congestion principles as stated in the document are well grounded in a long history of research on Internet congestion control, and are not likely to change in a significant way any time soon. Vern > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:44:01 PST > From: Vern Paxson > Subject: Adelaide meeting (maybe); draft-floyd-cong-01.txt > To: ecm@aciri.org > > I'd like to encourage discussion of this I-D during the next couple of > weeks. (Also, we're now thinking it should be submitted for BCP rather > than Informational.) Hari & Srini are working on an update to > draft-balakrishnan-cm-01.txt, namely splitting it into two documents > as previously discussed. This should be out by the end of the week. > > (If we don't have fruitful mailing list discussions shortly, then I think > it won't be worth holding a meeting in Adelaide, and instead focus on > cracking the whip post-Adelaide.) > > Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Mon Mar 20 08:30:39 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27565 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10472 for ecm-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:25:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@smtp.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@smtp.aciri.org using -f Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10467 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:25:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mallman@guns.lerc.nasa.gov) Received: from guns (guns.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.44.160]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16128; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:27:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200003201327.IAA16128@lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov> To: ecm@aciri.org From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@grc.nasa.gov cc: Vern Paxson Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP Organization: Late Night Hackers, NASA Glenn, Cleveland, Ohio Song-of-the-Day: Welcome to the Jungle Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:27:52 -0500 Sender: owner-ecm@aciri.org Precedence: bulk I finally read the above draft over the weekend. So, for whatever they're worth, my two euros... The draft is quite nicely done and I think it it a very good candidate for BCP. It seems to me that the draft discusses many points where there is much consensus and has been for a long time. Hence, I really think BCP is the way to go (vs. informational). allman From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Fri Mar 24 00:45:14 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18624 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA35699 for ecm-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:40:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@smtp.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@smtp.aciri.org using -f Received: from sourcenet.org (1Cust218.tnt2.savannah.ga.da.uu.net [63.10.137.218]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA35688; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:40:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeffallen@sourcenet.org) From: Subject: Would you like to save 30% on your phone bills and... Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:49:17 Message-Id: <468.210726.702798@sourcenet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ecm@aciri.org Precedence: bulk To be removed from this mailing list immediately press reply and enter REMOVE on the subject line. Would you like some information on saving 30% on your Phone bills each month and how to get up to 8% back each month on your Utilities including phone. Both residential and Business. Reply with "MORE INFO" in the subject field