From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Tue Feb 29 02:46:41 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13180 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA61957 for ecm-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:41:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov (daffy.ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.31]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA61952 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:41:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov) Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2) id XAA01031; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:44:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200002290744.XAA01031@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> To: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Adelaide meeting (maybe); draft-floyd-cong-01.txt Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:44:01 PST From: Vern Paxson Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk I'd like to encourage discussion of this I-D during the next couple of weeks. (Also, we're now thinking it should be submitted for BCP rather than Informational.) Hari & Srini are working on an update to draft-balakrishnan-cm-01.txt, namely splitting it into two documents as previously discussed. This should be out by the end of the week. (If we don't have fruitful mailing list discussions shortly, then I think it won't be worth holding a meeting in Adelaide, and instead focus on cracking the whip post-Adelaide.) Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Tue Feb 29 09:54:54 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19559 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:54:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA63996 for ecm-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:51:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from hns3.hns.com (hns3.hns.com [208.236.67.3]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA63991 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:51:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from border@hns.com) Received: from hnssysa.md.hns.com (hnssysa.hns.com [139.85.76.100]) by hns3.hns.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16543; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:50:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from hns.com (alta14.hns.com [139.85.62.34]) by hnssysa.md.hns.com (8.9.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA26294; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:53:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38BBDD6D.430C57B9@hns.com> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:53:33 -0500 From: John Border X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/712) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vern Paxson CC: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: Adelaide meeting (maybe); draft-floyd-cong-01.txt References: <200002290744.XAA01031@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vern, I'll take this opportunity to ask a question re IETF gathering of consensus which I have been wondering about... When an I-D (or just commentary) is sent to a mailing list and there is no reaction, it would dangerous to assume that no reaction means that everyone is okay with the I-D (or comment). But, I always sort of assumed that when an I-D is sent to a mailing list with an explicit request for comments before moving the document along that no reaction indicates consent. Is this the way it works? I think draft-floyd-cong-01.txt is ready as is. But, sending a message to the mailing list just to say I think it is ready doesn't feel right to me since my opinion should have roughly equal weight with everyone else's opinion but sending the message would seem to me like I was pushing my opinion ahead of everyone else's opinion... John Border Hughes Network Systems Vern Paxson wrote: > > I'd like to encourage discussion of this I-D during the next couple of > weeks. (Also, we're now thinking it should be submitted for BCP rather > than Informational.) Hari & Srini are working on an update to > draft-balakrishnan-cm-01.txt, namely splitting it into two documents > as previously discussed. This should be out by the end of the week. > > (If we don't have fruitful mailing list discussions shortly, then I think > it won't be worth holding a meeting in Adelaide, and instead focus on > cracking the whip post-Adelaide.) > > Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Tue Feb 29 13:11:36 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27564 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA65644 for ecm-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:08:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov (daffy.ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.31]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65639 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:08:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov) Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2) id KAA03845; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:10:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200002291810.KAA03845@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> To: John Border Cc: ecm@aciri.org Subject: Re: Adelaide meeting (maybe); draft-floyd-cong-01.txt In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:53:33 PST. Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:10:55 PST From: Vern Paxson Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk > When an I-D (or just commentary) is sent to a mailing list and there is no > reaction, it would dangerous to assume that no reaction means that everyone is > okay with the I-D (or comment). But, I always sort of assumed that when an > I-D is sent to a mailing list with an explicit request for comments before > moving the document along that no reaction indicates consent. Is this the way > it works? Good question. Wearing my AD hat for a moment, it's the role of the chair to judge the working group's consensus. For a document greeted with silence, the chair will generally factor in indications from the group's past discussions. If the chair is uncertain, then they might explicitly ask the WG whether there's support for the document. Also, for standards-track documents, if the chair misreads the consensus, then that can be pointed out by WG members during the IETF last call. > I think draft-floyd-cong-01.txt is ready as is. But, sending a message to > the mailing list just to say I think it is ready doesn't feel right to me > since my opinion should have roughly equal weight with everyone else's opinion > but sending the message would seem to me like I was pushing my opinion ahead > of everyone else's opinion... Both as a chair and as an AD, I welcome "I support this document going forward" messages, as they confirm that someone has given thought to the document and believes it's on course, and also can act as a spur to others who think the document isn't ready to voice their dissent. Vern From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Tue Feb 29 14:37:15 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00416 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:37:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA66149 for ecm-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:34:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from mrout1.yahoo.com (mrout1.yahoo.com [208.48.125.95]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA66144 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:34:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jayanth@yahoo-inc.com) Received: from milk.yahoo.com (milk.yahoo.com [206.251.16.37]) by mrout1.yahoo.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta6/y.out) with ESMTP id e1TJaOc80475 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jayanth@localhost) by milk.yahoo.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id LAA15514 for ecm@aciri.org; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:36:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:36:24 -0800 From: jayanth To: ecm@aciri.org Subject: CM related Message-ID: <20000229113624.A14772@yahoo-inc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk how would the CM based protocols perform if the receiver feedback is zero ? If one were to deploy a CM based approach but cannot expect any feeback from the receiver, in terms of response to CM probes,etc could the CM extract more information per flow then the existing TCP stack. thanks, jayanth From owner-ecm@wyvern.aciri.org Tue Feb 29 17:21:01 2000 Received: from wyvern.aciri.org (wyvern.aciri.org [192.150.187.14]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03927 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA66872 for ecm-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:18:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ecm@www.aciri.org) X-Authentication-Warning: wyvern.aciri.org: majordomo set sender to owner-ecm@www.aciri.org using -f Received: from ziggy.stardust.com (ns.stardust.com [205.184.205.34]) by wyvern.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA66867 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:18:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from martinb@stardust.com) Received: from WHITESTAR (dhcp204-106.stardust.com [205.184.204.106]) by ziggy.stardust.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA23445; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:18:25 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000229141821.009eaaf0@stardust.com> X-Sender: martinb@stardust.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:18:21 -0800 To: Marty Bickford From: Marty Bickford Subject: Call for Presentations: iBAND4 June 11-14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ecm@www.aciri.org Precedence: bulk Call for Papers - http://www.stardust.com/iband4/conference.htm --------------- iBAND4 - Advancing the Technology of Internet Bandwidth Management and Traffic Engineering Technical Conference - June 11-13 Workshops with DMTF - June 14 iBAND4 is the fourth in a series of events focused on innovation in the areas of bandwidth management and traffic engineering. iBAND5 will be co-located and run together with ISPCON. The goal of iBAND is to help IP network professionals at ISP's and enterprise's understand the direction of work being done by standards groups and vendors. These events have also become a meeting place for the folks driving innovation in the areas of bandwidth management and traffic engineering. iBAND attendees include IP network engineers, network architects, engineering and business executives, MIS and IT professionals, product and development managers, researchers and other innovators. You are invited to submit a presentation proposal. To aid you in submitting a proposal, please visit http://www.stardust.com/iband4/conference.htm If you do not wish to present, we hope you will mark your calendar to attend this fun and innovative conference. Email or call me with any questions. Sincerely, Marty --- Marty Bickford - 408.879.8080 (8081-fax) Stardust.com - http://www.stardust.com