This seems like valuable work. One question is, can we put in scope notification that losses are NOT due to congestion?
Willing to comment and review, at least. On 5 November 2013 09:03, Bob Briscoe <bob.bris...@bt.com> wrote: > Folks, > > Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item in the > IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need visibility of > interest. > Even better, if you're willing to read / comment / review / implement > > Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that > Encapsulate IP > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines> > > Abstract > > The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion > notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that > encapsulates IP. The aim is for explicit congestion signals to > propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP. Then the > IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry > congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the > transport layer (L4). Following these guidelines should assure > interworking between new lower layer congestion notification > mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies. > > > [Cross-posting tsvwg & aqm, just in case] > > > Bob Briscoe, > also for co-authors Pat Thaler and John Kaippallimalil > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > -- Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewm...@google.com | +61 4 8143 7128
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
