[Iccrg] Request to publish draft-irtf-iccrg-welzl-congestion-control-open-research-08

[Aaron Falk]

 RFC Editor-

Please publish draft-irtf-iccrg-welzl-congestion-control-open-research-08 as an Informational IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG and also reviewed for IETF conflict by the IESG. See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/29 for details on the IESG and prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Wesley Eddy,  weddy at grc.nasa.gov.

The authors would like to have a few edits made as described by the message below.

--aaron

---
Aaron Falk
Chair
Internet Research Task Force
http://www.irtf.org




On 9/29/10 5:43 PM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] wrote:
> Hi Aaron, the ICCRG document on open research issues in
> Internet congestion control has been through the IESG's
> review and is now ready for submission to the RFC Editor.
>
> The authors and IESG agreed on the following request to
> the RFC Editor for modification of the draft prior to
> publication as an RFC (which they would like the RFC
> Editor to handle, rather than submit another revision):
>
> RFC Editor Note
>
> (1) Replace beginning of Section 3.5.3 with:
>
>   3.5.3 Inelastic Multi-domain Pseudowires
>
>   Extending pseudo-wires across multiple domains poses specific issues.
>   Pseudowires (PW) [RFC3985] may carry non-TCP data flows (e.g. TDM
>   traffic or Constant Bit Rate (CBR) ATM traffic) over a multi-domain 
>   IP network. Structure Agnostic TDM over Packet (SATOP) [RFC4553], 
>   Circuit Emulation over Packet Switched Networks (CESoPSN), TDM over 
>   IP, are not responsive to congestion control as discussed by
>   [RFC2914] (see also [RFC5033]). The same observation applies to ATM 
>   circuit emulating services (CES) interconnecting CBR equipment (e.g. 
>   PBX) across a Packet Switched Network (PSN).
>
>   Moreover, it is not possible to simply reduce the flow rate of a TDM
>   PW or an ATM PW when facing packet loss. Providers can rate control 
>   corresponding incoming traffic but they may not be able to detect 
>   that PWs carry TDM or CBR ATM traffic (mechanisms for characterizing 
>   the traffic temporal properties may not necessarily be supported). 
>
>   This can be illustrated with the following example. 
>
>
> (2) Add at the end of Section 3.8.4 Congestion Control in Multi-layered Networks
>
>   Section 3.5.3 deals with Inelastic Multi-domain Pseudowires (PW), 
>   where the characteristics of the Pseudowire itself determines the 
>   characteristics of the traffic crossing the multi-domain PSN 
>   (and this independently of the characteristics of the traffic 
>   carried in the PW). A more complex situation arises when inelastic 
>   traffic is carried as part of a Pseudowire (e.g. inelastic traffic 
>   over Ethernet PW over PSN) whose edges do not have the means to 
>   characterize the properties of the traffic encapsulated into the
>   Ethernet frames. In this case, the problem explained in 
>   Section 3.5.3 is not limited to multi-domain Pseudowires but more 
>   generally induced by "Pseudowire carrying inelastic traffic" (over 
>   a single- or multi-domain PSN). The problem becomes even more
>   intricate when the Ethernet PW carries both inelastic and 
>   elastic traffic. Addressing this issue further comforts our 
>   observation that a general framework to efficiently deal with 
>   congestion control problems in multi-layer networks is absolutely
>   necessary but without harming its evolvability.
>
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
>
>
>