Hi, On 2014-1-14, at 16:39, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Lars, I know we're repeating arguments from the last decade. The > choice is between (1) specifying congestion control around the > substrate UDP that can be turned off if it causes problems, or (2) > specifying nothing at this time and adding it later if operators want > it. > > I guess if this can be written as a SHOULD, up to the implementor's > discretion, then okay. I don't think we can leave this up to implementors discretion. We've had IETF consensus that Internet communication requires congestion control at least since RFC2914. A circuit breaker mechanisms seems straightforward to implement. As is, I object to this document going forward. The minor benefits of getting some better load balancing for MPLS are far outweighed by the risks. (I'm also going to shut up now, and let others speak. I think I've said my bit.) Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail