Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Specification to Allow IETF Experimentation
draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Naeem Khademi , Michael Welzl , Dr. Grenville Armitage , Gorry Fairhurst | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-21 (Latest revision 2016-07-20) | ||
| Replaces | draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-ecn | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document relaxes recommendations and prescriptions from RFC3168 and RFC4774 that get in the way of experimentation with different ECN strategies. First, RFC3168 and RFC4774 state that, upon the receipt by an ECN-Capable transport of a single CE packet, the congestion control algorithms followed at the end-systems MUST be essentially the same as the congestion control response to a single dropped packet. This document relaxes this rule in order to encourage experimentation with different backoff strategies. Second, this document allows future IETF specifications to use the ECT(1) codepoint in ways that are currently prohibited by RFC3168. Third, this document allows future IETF experiments to use the ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoint on any TCP segment.
Authors
Naeem Khademi
Michael Welzl
Dr. Grenville Armitage
Gorry Fairhurst
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)