From nobody Thu Jul 3 09:43:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F871B2A22 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDs75FcP12Ay for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80EF1B2979 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02FED2374D for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:43:32 +0200 (CEST) X-uc3m-safe: yes X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [192.168.3.153] (athedsl-4491414.home.otenet.gr [94.71.84.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5961CC3A7A9 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:43:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53B58833.2020804@it.uc3m.es> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:43:31 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'ConEx IETF list' Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1017-20796.000 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/bPQ91TUTzlV8phvtRfVq5FNmOsE Subject: [conex] toronto meeting X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:43:37 -0000 Hi, Please send me the requests for presentations for toronto. Regards, marcelo From nobody Fri Jul 11 02:59:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199D01B2816 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 02:59:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.252 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbTNKv1i3Ofz for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 02:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFCC51B27E0 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 02:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.109) by EVMHR68-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:59:28 +0100 Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:59:27 +0100 Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:59:27 +0100 Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.130.93]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s6B9xOa2029931 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:59:24 +0100 Message-ID: <201407110959.s6B9xOa2029931@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:59:25 +0100 To: ConEx IETF list From: Bob Briscoe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/NObtzscx4CfGqPkIx1CyaAcMMQA Subject: [conex] Fwd: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:59:32 -0000 ConEx list, I'm forwarding this because it is v relevant to the mods to TCP that are needed for ConEx: ConEx is intended to eventually work with most transports. Nonetheless, the ConEx WG is chartered to ensure it works with TCP first. For the sender to reinsert drop feedback, SACK feedback is sufficient. But to reinsert ECN feedback, the current ECN feedback in TCP can give no mode than one signal per RTT, no matter how many ECN marks arrive at the receiver. The TCPM WG chartered work on a requirements spec to solve this problem of inaccurate ECN feedback. It has now reached WG last call - see below. Bob >From: Pasi Sarolahti >Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 14:52:20 +0300 >To: "tcpm@ietf.org (tcpm@ietf.org)" >Archived-At: >http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/AkFKcsjitygiSkeBpRFJIiJhe7g >Subject: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs >List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: tcpm > >Hi, > >This Email starts the working group last call for >draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-06 ("Problem Statement and Requirements >for a More Accurate ECN Feedback"), to be submitted as Informational >RFC. The WGLC ends on Monday, July 21st (which is the scheduled date >for the TCPM meeting in Toronto). Please send any comments to the >TCPM mailing list by then. Statements supporting publication of the >current version are also welcome. > >Datatracker link to the document is >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs/ > >- Pasi, on behalf of the TCPM chairs > >_______________________________________________ >tcpm mailing list >tcpm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT From nobody Mon Jul 21 11:40:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8431A0309; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iYt9BuLt6I1C; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEF91A0345; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:40:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140721184013.27419.72917.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:40:13 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/2ynOMsMVafj6hV89EYVLQmlAuC8 Cc: conex@ietf.org Subject: [conex] I-D Action: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12.txt X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:40:17 -0000 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 : Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts, Abstract Mechanism and Requirements Authors : Matt Mathis Bob Briscoe Filename : draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2014-07-21 Abstract: This document describes an abstract mechanism by which senders inform the network about the congestion encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. Today, network elements at any layer may signal congestion to the receiver by dropping packets or by ECN markings, and the receiver passes this information back to the sender in transport-layer feedback. The mechanism described here enables the sender to also relay this congestion information back into the network in-band at the IP layer, such that the total amount of congestion from all elements on the path is revealed to all IP elements along the path, where it could, for example, be used to provide input to traffic management. This mechanism is called congestion exposure or ConEx. The companion document "ConEx Concepts and Use Cases" provides the entry-point to the set of ConEx documentation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Jul 21 14:29:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9001A0640 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eBEVkd7c1aT2 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x231.google.com (mail-oa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B33641A05D1 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id eb12so8248674oac.22 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/Rd1SstruHzl2at+h3p9fvDCS8Wpszuwp5uBbreBnWo=; b=OavTwqfS1JMKHs2BiMNbl3n7EzRfhzSOAW0oif9w52Do0ieI5bVHWFNk+GC1d6/+Yi BP8AvqSw0rIjMMO2nWFn+DznsuC5ZWH4Iew+tGTH/yU+VPcjxGQhJhyaUD+VOpAfCVDl wxk/xeJnckgxiE9N/plr1D+yjBqA8ISUNEtpgPGOLDoJNHhw1OicMr2AHt2CpdjxNiB2 kASpKRow5omjxPuwo7g4jFu+vJNj287+3RtnhjncHUeP0mlYZI3b5Rx3VE+eygzdTGjd 2MQ8liozldP2E6Z47BOuxrzkeVzDiD8xeMo7E+Df8UPHami2LP2k7xymoGvtQ7aUcrlE hRlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/Rd1SstruHzl2at+h3p9fvDCS8Wpszuwp5uBbreBnWo=; b=PCSqZbGZ9HPCJ5AcLxPc2HZ68pt/lS5BCP9n7t4JEw107gMHTz/V9xo4bYIiIFu0c7 vBFhB+PA+GtxAr/9doBGJKn9gij14ocq9m6eNHpMhpyMla6bf7KIrV+oOkzDvUcL4tOH E5pqLLX2X6BMeTzIKw6+roWZEcFNiz5roR+d4g2/tam8QzMxp9EzrZSYHXo5+sWIsOQM 24D9l0d5ITJK2OA1o0H+edJH9Xgf5FSs0b6nLKGP12UpznHRInHtpBfIreFzEu6uEvyp J4h8Wa+tt/M/Cm6YfNuHwggdw9WDgq4S6mbr0kKHNxe4/XIt+NP8sR1PiTK9DnipZ7wI 5aQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQloFl+XFREyX8Pb6pn7XU9U8sbFu7Sg7wIqiSi72b6ybesiDHSdHWfYeh+DAo6CA4gDApx1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.23.34 with SMTP id j2mr42767819oef.32.1405978145925; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.127.20 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:29:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati To: "conex@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d426f3489504febacb2b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/rO4frAABNE6ZJE9FT4rylOxmfTQ Subject: [conex] ConEx side meeting X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 21 Jul 2014 21:29:07 -0000 --047d7b33d426f3489504febacb2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In place of a working group session we are holding a ConEx side meeting with some key draft authors and discuss the forward progress of remaining drafts. We would like to keep the same room, time, and audio/jabber facilities so stay tuned, and please plan on attending if you can. Best, Nandita --047d7b33d426f3489504febacb2b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In place of a working group session we are holding a ConEx= side meeting with some key draft authors and discuss the forward progress = of remaining drafts.

We would like to keep the same room= , time, and audio/jabber facilities so stay tuned, and please plan on atten= ding if you can.

Best,
Nandita
--047d7b33d426f3489504febacb2b-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 23:29:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3740E1A050E for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4_xhT6eQf38E for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F250B1A0366 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id h136so4059481oig.7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vwGVI++iXdOHiy5tpDlDqGbuXydilSDS0KC51WGZdCE=; b=pJIVhqNDV6YrtBI5OGYqfL5Vl1sbYFv1iuRmQT0WfBVelDID2ZBviTTagAYZFqYtrx 9/mFauro1R30NJWk9j/eb4kB0jX28lNZuCL8Hla9G6RFM1Ze10WYQdB9w6AK3pdpbeLB 11+q1twyLR4u/beePY8ClmmjMCU7b/ihERyF0lc8lsPQcFyc++YNuqmRlAWrLE0JfVYn jWd6+AeuSWgfmZxgzmwWWbvCg0oETRJi811liKoL5sMc2vKLtXHRuTYSBdJgnbZP+mfM YNfvAWsFRjJJZQUJ8DAulCgJ+YC3DsEZOW+Jxeu63CPlO7sQpWSwBn79CBgLR/mQ9zir 4pXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=vwGVI++iXdOHiy5tpDlDqGbuXydilSDS0KC51WGZdCE=; b=MtHVispyfHMroeEQPqN0v0erPnvGzKQopfVqz0jVVsdQFRKElnfyoJ1qghYmktlmHx G3L1eRcl5l0FMfUPfpmsf2lyn/ReZQM8wNqmsk5qbMpU+7vC8xXVOk1NrDJ+Ci33j7Qp Dsq3GPdnmfUyvRFek8vtPMdATh4w+CtNpq1O/tBolTsiidmPM8H/RP8OVD/tJYihP4Ea 527NxRpg6M0aRVxqZppdx47n3gaLQ2vEelwfregtRDEDh29/qpL+HWUZmkbdWgiaF7HF sAufS8ZcXq/5BTQARYugqgy/5ZGm2R3ji64uxa8NTlzrgqfFXvncAeBYAkAeMRMMjVkV PkMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk2KEu17s910objcQ4mPQTrdR8UnN2+lM0pljyz3tcX09gv4Sepqqq3w0fQylVo8PX+bVu6 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.23.34 with SMTP id j2mr45871249oef.32.1406010546259; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.127.20 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:29:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= , "Scheffenegger, Richard" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/yK6iGZyqSVVBerzF1SbM1GwYhBg Cc: Jana Iyengar , "conex@ietf.org" Subject: [conex] Feedback on draft-ietf-conex-tcp-modifications-05 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:29:08 -0000 (feedback as individual contributor) No need to sugar coat: this draft needs lot more work. But happy to help to shape it to its final form. --------- Table of Contents * Section 2 is Sender side changes. I was looking for equivalent Receiver side changes, but there's no section for that. Should there be one? * Section 3 My suggestion is to swap the ECN and loss detection sections, because loss detection methods are implicit and can be used today, while ECN requires... well ECN to be deployed. Introduction * At the end of Introduction lay out the organization of the remainder of the draft so a reader is informed of how the flow looks like. * Need to set up the problem being addressed Jumping to Section 2 on Sender side modifications felt abrupt. What's missing is a setup of the problem that the draft is proposing TCP changes for. Can we place this problem setup either in the Intro. or a separate section in itself. An example of what might go into the problem set up is: Algorithms for a ConEx sender to keep track of byte wise congestion. Section 2. Sender-side modifications * "A ConEx sender MUST negotiate for both SACK and ECN.... Thus a ConEx SHOULD also implement SACK and ECN". The para appears incorrect to me. If you mandate a MUST for SACK/ECN negotiation, then shouldn't there be a MUST also for implementing SACK and ECN? * Pseudo code. Section 2 begs for pseudo code to succinctly describe the proposal. Else the text is unnecessarily wordy. * Section 2 ends abruptly. It sets up the problem and I was looking for more details, but I guess they are punted to the other sections in the draft. Section 3. Accounting congestion * "... ConEx marked either with the E bit or the L bit..." AFAICT this is the first occurrence of E and L bits, and hence should define them. * Section 3 uses "outstanding bytes" often to describe the algorithms. On immediate reading it was confusing, because in TCP implementations outstanding bytes refers to the data that's been sent out but not ACKed yet. What you really mean by outstanding bytes here is a count of the remaining bytes that are yet to be ConEx marked with either ECN or loss bits. It's worthwhile having an explicitly and precisely efined term here. Section 3.1 * The algorithmic description of DeliveredData is laborious. Can you see if you can simplify the description. Also take a look at [PRR RFC] and see how DeliveredData is described there. * Is Section 3.1 the best place to describe DeliveredData? DeliveredData is trivial when there's no loss - it's just the number of bytes acked. So clearly the value of DeliveredData is when there are packet losses. So then shouldn't you be describing in the loss sesction and using that definition in the ECN section. This also goes back to an earlier comment I made that you should consider swapping the two placement of these two sections, 3.1 and 3.2. * For ease of reading and simplicity, please split up the equation for DeliveredData into the SACK and non-SACK case. Section 3.1.2 Classic ECN support * ".... it will receive one full RTT of delayed ACKs with the ..." I don't remember exactly, but some implementations may disable delayed ACKs on receiving a CE mark. What's the significance of mentioning delayed ACKs here? * Why not recommend (SHOULD?) to turn off delayed ACKs when rceiving CE marks. May be this belongs to another draft and not here? * The description of the more sophisticated heuristic to extract congestion notification at the end of Section 3.1.2 sounds half hearted to me. My suggestion: either describe it nicely and clearly with pseudo code etc., or give a high level idea here and ditch the details to an Appendix. At least that way the flow of the draft is maintained. Section 3.2 Loss Detection * Do retransmitted packets carry ConEx L bit or just the original data segments? Whatever the answer is, why? Section 3.2.1 Without SACK Support * Isn't this the right place to discuss DeliveredData w/o SACK support? Section 3.2.1 Without SACK support * General comment that's not sepcific to this section: LEC and LEG are very close in naming, but mean different things. Can we coose better names? * Is there any implicit relation between LEC and LEG counters? Seems like there is, otherwise why do you say that LEG shoul be increased by LEC? * It seems to me that you have a nice algorithm here, but sorry you totally lost me. My only suggestion would be to try and put the algo in a nice pseudo code. Section 4 * A lot of what appears in this section seems like should be in the sendder side changes. Section 4.1 * What's the reasoning behind: "If the CEG or LEG counter is negative, the respective counter SHOULD be reset to sero within one RTT after it was decreased..." Section 4.2 * Please clarify the relation between credit counter and the previous counters LEG/LEC? Are they independent? * Could you expand more on how you arrived at: every fourth packet will allow teh respective number of credits in Slow Start..." I can see how it works. Is there a formulae connecting the Slow Start exponent and the the nth packet that needs to be marked? * Mention how credits should be replenished in congestion avoidance phase. Section 6 Timeliness of the ConEx Signals * You discuss the event when receiving both ECN and loss signals. But how should the sender respond? Send ConEx signals for summation of both ECN/loss (I would think not) or choose the max? Editorial changes I have tons of editorial changes marked all over the draft - too many to spend time to cut+paste in this email. I'll just scan the sheets and send them to you. From nobody Tue Jul 22 07:28:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1591B28ED for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3YfAtepqsp7l for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B5E1B2929 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x69so4464026oia.20 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/6U3F4+XdQElGYnTbPhqMlajWrFUJqddEoH4hi41sC8=; b=kZWU2FAA6Rz1RlJOMoeHYxLhSq7cYywz5Yl01BXNV9xt9DiYQsKc1WqVbRyUIasiiN 4v4yZcJfaFR2fpjmQNd/yRFKrDFlbcS8+6nZM8+tIaCQYlo1Kyfyof/GA61QcR8rfI59 izHvWzdjef9dLZkUTrOGt8RByMSd6Hne1QY5S0fVDlo66ZBOT5vVeFKciBQzyv6qNt2+ mcKSbectaMFZMRNfv7A7xiaZPuqkb377VbYPrbA8eiw9Zk+79vJOrAnT85yjQfRdH3u4 Z+5nmwl8cI/Z++HyCGDn/vjbs2Ls/2Ow8uJIdfSQTm4wlbgh15p8CAeHIymUfFuoWqfk QeAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=/6U3F4+XdQElGYnTbPhqMlajWrFUJqddEoH4hi41sC8=; b=d60JpjdlcS/grpT7tfEu9DEpq0lK3TD+MNG3B74d85MsQPejR8xyqCsgVNYr0jAUlp pHltaVdqM4cgkoe7+Mxz45OGQ6aEKj5aF9FVNjEEM/HCVvWQHwtpqoZvSGpbEoela1v0 ar+69wjaR+Tabg/hz1mVdDQKkYlNPqLV7PX6prQSEDX7BYIR6N2UEshj+CswqavVbPQU sgZPNchq6dV14UcQG4TTEJTgAHbxc84A1e16WF0iSUC/QHh5GAECxmAi32eqD8KB2vd3 QgOAZ+pUP7M4H0ENMh8qi7s7RZHMWLoyJK6Ta7KOnBQIWYMQmuy5X8j5TR8zSeUHLrz9 nHkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvtH0EPEK+NFdCmuOJzSQVxQAzM7k1Zjay9Q59e7M0QqABaN0QN4O8/PINbEl2VMoA1zlt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.236.225 with SMTP id ux1mr48004805obc.57.1406039316001; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.127.20 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati To: Dirk Kutscher , Faisal-Ghias Mir , Rolf Winter , Suresh Krishnan , Ying Zhang , cjbc@it.uc3m.es Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/1X73ucTg8embT6eYHSCkq2XqS8U Cc: "conex@ietf.org" Subject: [conex] Comments on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-03 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:28:42 -0000 (as individual contributor). Still reading, but wanted to pass on comments on early part of the draft. Introduction * The second para describing measurements in cellular networks: is there a reference to the data? Section 2.1 ConEx as a basis for Traffic Management * The second para goes into great details on QoS requirements in EPS, radio bearers etc... but you lost me: what is the point you want to make? * On reading further into Section 2.1, I am just not getting the high order point you want to make here. The text switches back and forth between explaining the current state in mobile networks (DPI etc.), and that ConEx can be useful. Instead, I suggest the following: separate out the two. First clearly explain the traffic management problem in cellular networks. Then go on with the specifics on how ConEx can be used to address the problems laid out. I think the above split will save the readers a lot of time in trying to parse through Sec. 2.1 Further, the usefulness of ConEx is referred to in very high level terms with little details. Going a step further and specifying some level of detail as to how ConEx might exactly work in mobile will be useful. Nandita From nobody Tue Jul 22 09:07:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50821A0379 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QvbVKg9cR66U for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x235.google.com (mail-oa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8CF41A01F7 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j17so10006391oag.40 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=d3enX9RcHx8f4ubTO0a20xzM5DglZXPNNm297oBatQg=; b=FiQRh+/RxQg+271Otlzca/JKMJh8S3Ilx1PTqn61vGaCyWVQGOeLTyAKncyZLqIWWX I+/p2b7+TPV67pUIiEa1ZGewjVQhCoF/TAcH92Zea+KU02nLnWVghO+fjLxoLj9bcv5x pyY5vclRzwMQyAsw8jU8/FnMwWKc4magJKXVXc1rdyvPZ8/3e6TKrbPGbBpKR3RsG7pn Urao2N47szr1mb6qH9ti0dmyb25W2BAY0TVYaXIySOroYQ0uE8Buhka4H5BajgWDRADx RK5LoSj8GWVsTMn+r8opz60gO907yjK4FUEGQr7XZBRDMTj3Px4J98s8U5vy/uANfUAY 4pNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=d3enX9RcHx8f4ubTO0a20xzM5DglZXPNNm297oBatQg=; b=FaKPGxzHf0zJ8LgG2Oi2O5q+Hs1VonbvdH1x9o2JnH2qFiSp3OU/NXkWdYCtJQU02K FziPNL80GCy0k+H+waQXCecJGglqukXstRtkp+IBK4f7lLswp/ZM6gVcHax7HTh0kc2J NPLw1zWZr3gp1r28VTKGaghCgth5RmZfU7kmr9WXJSZasLVCXnO/UGqC/QQciZ4a70Gg t1qFI1gVxRyTNlkcN7ftUu+3zjMEK3OSTu/epY0JrLivT6bDy0K/W0aYo0ufMLeLo49W 34T28qnCLLg0kSvwatJMSiFE2mwdQIcfwCp8RUDo6AOADDnisUY/ecgK0JgaMtoL0R5i z5EA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYQzkbmidRZV8USk5z4JLtUZZacj+UQ17fkI4g0C4CAkOGVCvH8WBLVkuRw1SWwNMl2PZq MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.98.206 with SMTP id ek14mr49872360oeb.51.1406045220142; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.127.20 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201407212043.s6LKh64W001847@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati To: "conex@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/cqt4EQZp3gSWSGLt9XR3JraaJas Subject: [conex] Fwd: [www.ietf.org/rt #67008] ConEx meeting X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:07:01 -0000 Note: the side meeting is in the same room (Salon B) with the audio facilities, so remote participants can still join the in room discussion. Nandita ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie via RT Date: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:13 AM Subject: [www.ietf.org/rt #67008] ConEx meeting To: Cc: nanditad@google.com Hi Nandita, Sorry for the delay in responding to you, this has been properly marked on the agenda we will keep you in the same room with the same facilities. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Stephanie IETF Secretariat From nobody Tue Jul 22 10:36:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CAE1B2B15 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:36:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCgR3xUAEnks for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73EC91B2B17 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68816D22CB4 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:36:13 +0200 (CEST) X-uc3m-safe: yes X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from dhcp-a7ce.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a7ce.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.167.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C07BED22C89 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:36:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53CEA109.4090400@it.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:36:09 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'ConEx IETF list' Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1018-20834.001 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/4S6b2m4Y4b4RL50n8AQQkLV7P6Q Subject: [conex] WG last call for draft-ietf-conex-destopt-06 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:36:45 -0000 This note initiates the WGLC for draft-ietf-conex-destopt-06. You can find the document here: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-conex-destopt-06.txt Please provide comments before 15th august. Thanks, marcelo From nobody Tue Jul 22 10:41:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00C01B2B0E for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4L1gnTortJF for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AF881B2B07 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7510FD21F92 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:41:05 +0200 (CEST) X-uc3m-safe: yes X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from dhcp-a7ce.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a7ce.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.167.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00BE4CD55F0 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53CEA22E.8060104@it.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:41:02 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'ConEx IETF list' Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1018-20834.001 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/X6jl-aFpJpQYUr5BwViTcoA05P4 Subject: [conex] interim meeting X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:41:09 -0000 Hi, We are proposing to have an interim meeting on the monday 22nd september at 1800 hrs CEST. Please book the dates in your calendars. Regards, marcelo From nobody Tue Jul 22 11:07:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E65D1B2B26 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:07:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xy1mFs7OkznZ for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB5001A0061 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) by EVMHR65-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:07:31 +0100 Received: from EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.196.177) by EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:07:29 +0100 Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.196.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:07:28 +0100 Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.111.40.61]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s6MI7MY7006633; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:07:25 +0100 Message-ID: <201407221807.s6MI7MY7006633@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:05:17 +0100 To: Nandita Dukkipati , Marcelo BAGNULO BRAUN From: Bob Briscoe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/Khetw8GVKllSY908ZrG0iByPB3k Cc: ConEx IETF list Subject: [conex] Data Centre Latency Control (IRTF) research group X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:07:36 -0000 N, M, As promised: Meeting on Friday - details via a link on that page. Bob ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT From nobody Tue Jul 22 13:05:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6441B2845 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EvaH_sQud4ae for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2958B1B2828 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id e131so119799oig.32 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9ExWLUUd9Vr9RAFK8iYeYGoUEMmMOiIN7AeD23q9saY=; b=mtl+y9hTH5EkRGXHuBSxrie8LFuu3v+uCz0eVm+h2EMR0fMoJl/jzjhpRi1jFHuF5f Ls6ZBDq7DMaoP2k/gyvcxLJ4UEsWzf7MTMsdWWovVEICpICbt4axC2RfHCZEtvmgnP7v FFYzJ6lrjZsB8VqA8zssUQpujc/56b44/LKqq+qbiDb/Ou09ivKmMK+TxqbsQqP7af6d 2FttQfWeLtJxWgDX7JmjnDO6jdUH9vE0HUw7sXtlqsfXHWjk7UHaRSJgEKWPsJPIcT5n +Rork7jzaweRO9/C7CoJWTsedY3pWlZeVmFofYj+QsDBBkm0Oou3hwa/e/xmGsylUJd+ YJGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9ExWLUUd9Vr9RAFK8iYeYGoUEMmMOiIN7AeD23q9saY=; b=ZAQG0EdlpamvjfquVpgaxSGp/dX5ZgDI4gRXGGcqL8xLWcTVPKK1z5su7xOW/jxLJY DLr7yfpejn+91uk5+FfVuJyJ7K2R5OjwToSBRrHGPK43i2QtUCMaFO3HD+QFmfjdLuRK cWZphn+P3BeuNT1KKiqK4qZ7+iNkiukOL0fkDcAEV9Fix5pgW8jX5h0bP2BTPXUdpeQS nGvCDUTXy962dsL3ruWAdnjNvrX3GmQR7eygCMK17DQlf5tcnw77o+wa5D9e8PiQPSNz oXs1zWCqJ4XskDki9u3+nLPV2+nJ/tiAl+S35jly9NpLhb728Sdy2StANtWzQVez+1v5 Jr+A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNw2L3oczBbu5qt2ZsFLaxyQOeWcNhiGQxVQgPim+rtQ0BX7wyp/WJCXoyOl92OXjgsfCU MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.52.226 with SMTP id w2mr52100705oeo.3.1406059518353; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.127.20 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:05:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati To: Dirk Kutscher , Faisal-Ghias Mir , Rolf Winter , Suresh Krishnan , Ying Zhang , cjbc@it.uc3m.es Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/CtHEGo8bPZxhpXJ8W8sZUtixr-E Cc: "conex@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [conex] Comments on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-03 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:05:20 -0000 Continuing with some more comments... Section 2 is ConEx use cases in Mobile Communication Networks, while Section 3 is ConEx in EPS. Isn't ConEx in EPS also a part of the mobile communication networks? I am not getting it: what did you intend to be the key difference between Sections 2 and 3. As such my comment for Section 3 is same as below for Section 2: explain the problem, and then lay out the ConEx based solution/architecture. Nandita On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Nandita Dukkipati wrote: > (as individual contributor). > > Still reading, but wanted to pass on comments on early part of the draft. > > Introduction > > * The second para describing measurements in cellular networks: is > there a reference to the data? > > Section 2.1 ConEx as a basis for Traffic Management > > * The second para goes into great details on QoS requirements in EPS, > radio bearers etc... but you lost me: what is the point you want to > make? > > * On reading further into Section 2.1, I am just not getting the high > order point you want to make here. The text switches back and forth > between explaining the current state in mobile networks (DPI etc.), > and that ConEx can be useful. > > Instead, I suggest the following: separate out the two. First clearly > explain the traffic management problem in cellular networks. Then go > on with the specifics on how ConEx can be used to address the problems > laid out. > > I think the above split will save the readers a lot of time in trying > to parse through Sec. 2.1 > > Further, the usefulness of ConEx is referred to in very high level > terms with little details. Going a step further and specifying some > level of detail as to how ConEx might exactly work in mobile will be > useful. > > Nandita From nobody Fri Jul 25 08:14:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E191B2964; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:14:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SDhUMvKulAEU; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16991A0012; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20140725151453.1086.41400.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:14:53 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/evggtKmiIPfMjNexrB0U6L43jdg Cc: conex@ietf.org Subject: [conex] Last Call: (Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts, Abstract Mechanism and Requirements) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:14:55 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Congestion Exposure WG (conex) to consider the following document: - 'Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts, Abstract Mechanism and Requirements' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-08-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes an abstract mechanism by which senders inform the network about the congestion encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. Today, network elements at any layer may signal congestion to the receiver by dropping packets or by ECN markings, and the receiver passes this information back to the sender in transport-layer feedback. The mechanism described here enables the sender to also relay this congestion information back into the network in-band at the IP layer, such that the total amount of congestion from all elements on the path is revealed to all IP elements along the path, where it could, for example, be used to provide input to traffic management. This mechanism is called congestion exposure or ConEx. The companion document "ConEx Concepts and Use Cases" provides the entry-point to the set of ConEx documentation. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/ From nobody Thu Jul 31 15:45:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D092F1A026A; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JpV_dG4r5EaZ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F82B1A026C; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:44:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement List X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140731224450.22036.11021.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:44:50 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/BSvx5xwcA3t_ULET9lwyVpinO8k Cc: conex@ietf.org Subject: [conex] CONEX WG Virtual Interim Meeting, 22 September 2014 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:44:53 -0000 The CONEX WG will hold a virtual interim meeting via WebEx on Monday, 22 September 2014 at 1800 CEST. The agenda and WebEx information will be posted on the mailing list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex/current/maillist.html