On 2007-2-20, at 11:51, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the packet itself. While this is a possible approach, I don't see that it needs to be the only one. For example, a mechanism where the mutually trusting network components would have another channel to convey this information (e.g., using SNMP, IPFIX, or the like) might also apply.However, to be clear, I have no objection to using the ECN field(s) if that does not hinder the current use (or lack thereof) of ECN. What I specifically don't want is to define new fields for PCN, especially extension headers or IP options. I should have been clearer with my objection.
Right, there are multiple ways to encode and transport congestion information to and from the egress. The charter has a milestone for the WG to discuss various options before picking one for the initial standards-track documents:
Nov 2007 Survey of Encoding and Transport Choices of (Pre-)Congestion Information within a DiffServ Domain (Informational) Lars
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf