Subject: [conex] State of the WG docs. and action items

From: Nandita Dukkipati <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:52:09 -0800

Hi Everyone,

Here's the status of the WG docs. along with some action items for us to
make forward progress.

draft-mathis-conex-abstract-mech-00
Action items
1. Authors: please submit draft as WG item.
2. The content (not necessarily the text itself) of Appendix A in
draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02 (ConEx Architectural Elements) should
be included into mechanisms draft, while also using a terminology coherent
with the rest of the draft.

draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses
Action items
1. The draft needs to incorporate parts of the mcdysan draft. Please see ML
discussions and meeting minutes of Conex IETF-79, for specific details on
the parts that need to be included and those that require further
discussion.
2. The differential QoS use case requires a good amount of rewording. It's
currently lacking clarity.
3. Include a use case that talks about using Conex to account for usage
inequity over long time-frames.
4. Align terminology with abstract mechanism draft.

Conex IPv6 format
Action items (for the chairs)
1. What are the different options here, specifically the ones already
expressed in the ML?
2. If we require a bit in the flow label, what is the effort required and
who is willing to do it?

Conex TCP modifications
Action items
1. We need a draft here! Any takers? Mirja Kuhlewind, would you like to own
this action item?
2. Need to figure out the dependance on Conex IPv6 format.

Let's get some discussion and activity going in all of these areas!

-Nandita

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:00:45 +0100

Hi Nandita,

I was already trying to figure out a first version of a TCP modifications 
draft. The main issue here was the negotiation and coding of the exact ECN 
feedback. After some discussion we figured out that the ability to get exact 
ECN feedback might be something useful for not only ConEx but e.g. also for 
DCTCP. 
Thus my request to the ML: I would suggest to have a separate draft on exact 
ECN feedback (maybe even in a different WG like TCPM). Any thoughts?

If we have this part in a separate draft, the ConEx TCP draft might get quite 
slim. The remaining part will strongly depend on this exact ECN feedback 
draft as well as on the IPv6 coding draft, as we need to know what to do with 
the green marks (credits).

Mirja

On Monday 31 January 2011 02:52:09 Nandita Dukkipati wrote:
> draft-moncaster-conex-concepts-uses-02 (ConEx Architectural Elements)
> should be included into mechanisms draft, while also using a terminology
> coherent with the rest of the draft.
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart

tel: +49(0)711/685-67973
email: [email-masked]
web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------