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

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:12:52 -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.

Many thanks for the feedback.

>My belief is that re-interpreting a field in a manner differently than 
>it has previously been defined makes life pretty difficult.
>...
>
>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.

I am mostly neutral about the various proposals, and about whether
they go as "experimental use" or as something else.  But it seems
to me that the RTECN proposal *could* end up being defined consistently
with draft-floyd-ecn-alternates, in a way that was safe to deploy
in the Internet.  It is not there yet, however, I would say...

- Sally

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

---

From: Kwok Ho Chan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:15:58 -0400

Sally:
Thank you very much for the draft-floyd-ecn-alternates-00a.txt.
We greatly appreciate all the guidance and advice you have provided.

With respect to RTECN proposal:
We have been listening and improving on how to accomplish a goal with a 
simpler method.
As many of us are engineers, we continue to make trade-offs trying to 
provide the best
possible solutions.  We are trying to have the method we pick being lesser 
of the evils.

We are still making improvements to the RTECN proposal and the co-authors
don't think it is ready for the judgement call of which track it should be 
on and
have not indicated that we want such judgement be made at this time.
During the 62nd IETF in Minneapolis, we are asking for additional comments
so that we can improve this draft.
We are still keeping this draft as an individual contribution until it is 
ready.

We understand what we are doing and trying our best for the benefit of the 
Internet.
Thanks!
-- Kwok --