The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control' <draft-irtf-iccrg-welzl-congestion-control-open-research-08.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-iccrg-welzl-congestion-control-open-research/) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-iccrg-welzl-congestion-control-open-research/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary Technical Summary This document describes some of the open problems in Internet congestion control that are known today. This includes several new challenges that are becoming important as the network grows, as well as some issues that have been known for many years. These challenges are generally considered to be open research topics that may require more study or application of innovative techniques before Internet- scale solutions can be confidently engineered and deployed. Working Group Summary This document represents the work and the consensus of the ICCRG. Personnel Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com) has reviewed this document for the IESG. 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 intricated 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. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
