Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Specifying Alternate Semantics for the ECN Field

From: Baker Fred <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:34:52 -0800

On Mar 31, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Sally Floyd wrote:
> http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-floyd-ecn-alternates-00a.txt

thanks for your considerations. I think you're pretty much dead on.

My belief is that re-interpreting a field in a manner differently than 
it has previously been defined makes life pretty difficult.. We chose 
to do that once in redefining the TOS byte from a precedence field and 
a set of bit flags to the DSCP and ECN fields; when we did so, we did 
so with great care, and only after significant research into what was 
actually used in the TOS byte in real networks, and provided for 
backwards compatibility with what we found to exist. My concern with 
the other ECN proposals I have seen is that they do not take that care. 
As such, they can only be used in a manner consistent with the RFC 
status "experimental use" as described in RFC 2026.

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg