[Iccrg] Meeting @ Atlanta IETF

[Murari Sridharan]

Great point, as I said this could go either way. However I am saying there is work regarding signaling that should be taken up at TCPM and not just bucketized into being research. 

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Lachlan Andrew [mailto:lachlan.andrew at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:49 PM
To: Murari Sridharan
Cc: Michael Welzl; Yuchung Cheng; iccrg list
Subject: Re: [Iccrg] Meeting @ Atlanta IETF

Greetings Murari / all,

I think that the signalling itself may be suitable for TCPM, but there is plenty of research scope for the many different uses it can be put to.  If we stick to the original view of "ECN must be treated as loss"
then there isn't much to do, but looking at ways to combine ECN marks from multiple packets to signal richer information is research, and so is deciding what to do with that richer information.

$0.02
Lachlan

On 11 October 2012 11:07, Murari Sridharan <muraris at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Chair hat off, I think this topic is less research and more useful pursued in TCPM.
>
> Chair hat on: sounds interesting we should talk about it :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iccrg-bounces at cs.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:iccrg-bounces at cs.ucl.ac.uk] 
> On Behalf Of Michael Welzl
>
> I think it would be quite fitting, especially because the applications of such a scheme seem to be more research'y right now...
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
>
>> Should we discuss better ECN sigaling and feedback here too?
>> I thought that's a hot topic.

--
Lachlan Andrew  Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA) Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia <http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew>
Ph +61 3 9214 4837