On 1/14/2014 11:06 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > 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.) > I'm in basic agreement. Assuming we might all agree that there are conceivable scenarios where a circuit breaker mechanism would be useful, is the real issue that we don't all agree that it could be implemented in a way that's not burdensome and doesn't degrade performance unnecessarily? Or is there still fundamental disagreement about whether the scenarios where the circuit breaker is useful are even valid? -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems