Subject: [re-ECN] Congestion Transparency (re-ECN) ad hoc BoF @Stockholm IETF

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:00:39 +0100

Folks,

I'd like to get together people who might be interested in helping 
organise a BoF on Congestion Transparency (re-ECN) for a future IETF.

15:00 - 16:30 CET Thu 30 Jul Rm 501 @ Stockholm IETF conference venue

Pls give ideas for agenda items (I will too).

This isn't intended to be a general show-and-tell - it's mainly for 
people interested in helping/reviewing/discussing plans for a BoF to 
form an IETF working group. This should complement the design team 
work going on in ICCRG on a new capacity sharing architecture for the 
Internet. <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/CapacitySharingArch>

For those who won't be able to attend (and those who will), this list 
would also be a fine place to start discussions.

The main idea is to get some protocol specification activity going 
around re-ECN. Probably initially experimental track. So we can make 
some practical progress. But there is also room for writing docs 
about uses of congestion transparency and so on.

My colleague Alan Smith has (finally) got the green light from our 
employers to open source the Linux kernel code he has written. And 
there are two implementations in ns2 that I know of, with another two 
being planned. So we ought to be making sure the spec becomes truly 
common property and starts to evolve to commonly agreed requirements.

That means we have to be open to any changes, including using 
better/different fields in protocol headers, choosing a different 
name, and so on. But the most important thing is to make some 
practical progress.

Bob

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:55:49 -0500

How about an agenda item to clearly define "requirements" versus
"properties that would be nice".  This would, I think, be useful
in evaluating seriousness of some of the limitations listed in
draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-motivation-00
as well as comparing alternatives in the deployment space and
concisely codify assumptions about other issues like the ECN nonce.

---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: (216) 433-6682
---------------------------

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>Of Bob Briscoe
>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:01 PM
>To: re-ECN unIETF list
>Subject: [re-ECN] Congestion Transparency (re-ECN) ad hoc BoF @Stockholm
>IETF
>
>Folks,
>
>Internet.
><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/CapacitySharingArch>
>
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:09:10 +0200

Hi Bob,

just to give you some feedback: I'll be there.

Michael

Bob Briscoe schrieb:
> some practical progress. But there is also room for writing docs about 
> uses of congestion transparency and so on.
>

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn