Internet Engineering Task Force                                 S. Floyd
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                      ICIR
draft-floyd-ecn-alternates-01.txt                           11 July 2005
Expires: January 2006


       Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion
                        Notification (ECN) Field


Status of this Memo

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
    of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
    author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
    which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
    which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
    Section 6 of BCP 79.

    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts.

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
    months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
    at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
    reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

    This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2006.

Copyright Notice

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

    There have been a number of proposals for alternate semantics for
    the ECN field in the IP header [ECN].  This document discusses some



Floyd                                                           [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    of the issues in defining alternate semantics for the ECN field, and
    specifies requirements for a safe co-existence in an Internet that
    could include routers that do not understand the defined alternate
    semantics.  This document evolved as a result of discussions with
    the authors of one recent proposal for such alternate semantics.

    NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE DELETE THIS NOTE UPON PUBLICATION.

    Changes from draft-floyd-ecn-alternates-00.txt:

    * Added requirements for compatibility between traffic using default
    ECN semantics and routers using alternate ECN semantics, to the
    section on "Option 3:  Friendly Co-existence with Competing
    Traffic".  From email from Gorry Fairhurst.

    * Added to the discussion of using the diffserv code point to signal
    alternate ECN semantics.  From email from Gorry Fairhurst.

    * Minor editing for clarity, also from email from Gorry Fairhurst.

    END OF NOTE TO RFC EDITOR.

                             Table of Contents

    1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
    2. An Overview of the Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
    3. Signalling the Use of Alternate ECN Semantics . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1. Using the Diffserv Field for Signalling. . . . . . . . .   5
    4. Issues of Incremental Deployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1. Option 1:  Unsafe for Deployment in the
       Internet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2. Option 2:  Verification that Routers Under-
       stand the Alternate Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.3. Option 3:  Friendly Co-existence with Com-
       peting Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
    5. Evaluation of the Alternate-ECN Semantics . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.1. Verification of Feedback from the Router . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2. Co-existence with Competing Traffic. . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3. A General Evaluation of the Alternate-ECN
       Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
    6. Who Wants to Use Alternate Semantics for the ECN
    Codepoint? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
    7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    8. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13



Floyd                                                           [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    AUTHORS' ADDRESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
    Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
    Intellectual Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

    RFC 3168, a Proposed Standard document, defines the ECN field in the
    IP header, and specifies the semantics for the codepoints for the
    ECN field.  However, end nodes could specify the use of alternate
    semantics for the ECN field, e.g., using codepoints in the diffserv
    field of the IP header.  This document describes some of the issues
    that arise in specifying such alternate semantics for the ECN field,
    and gives requirements for a safe co-existence in a world using the
    default ECN semantics (or using no ECN at all).


2.  An Overview of the Issues

    In this section we discuss some of the issues that arise if some of
    the traffic in a network consists of alternate-ECN traffic (i.e.,
    traffic using alternate semantics for the ECN field).  The issues
    include the following: (1) how routers know which ECN semantics to
    use with which packets; (2) incremental deployment in a network
    where some routers use only the default ECN semantics, or no ECN at
    all; (3) co-existence of alternate-ECN traffic with competing
    traffic on the path; and (4) a general evaluation of the alternate-
    ECN semantics.

    (1) The first issue concerns how routers know which ECN semantics to
    use with which packets in the network:

    How does the connection indicate to the router that its packets are
    using alternate-ECN semantics?  Is the specification of alternate-
    ECN semantics robust and unambiguous?  If not, is this a problem?

    As an example, in most of the proposals for alternate-ECN semantics,
    a diffserv field is used to specify the use of alternate-ECN
    semantics.  Do all routers that understand this diffserv codepoint
    understand that it uses alternate-ECN semantics, or not?  Diffserv
    allows routers to re-mark DiffServ Code Point [DSCP] values within
    the network; what is the effect of this on the alternate-ECN
    semantics?

    This is discussed in more detail in Section 3 below.

    (2) A second issue is that of incremental deployment in a network
    where some routers only use the default ECN semantics, and other
    routers might not use ECN at all.  In this document we use the



Floyd                                               Section 2.  [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    phrase "new routers" to refer to the routers that understand the
    alternate-ECN semantics, and "old routers" to refer to routers that
    don't understand or aren't willing to use the alternate-ECN
    semantics.

    The possible existence of old routers raises the following question:
    How does the possible presence of old routers affect the performance
    of the alternate-ECN connections?

    (3) The possible existence of old routers also raises the question
    of how the presence of old routers affects the co-existence of the
    alternate-ECN traffic with competing traffic on the path.

    Issues (2) and (3) are discussed in Section 4 below.

    (4) A final issue is that of the general evaluation of the
    alternate-ECN semantics:

    How well does the alternate-ECN traffic perform, and how well does
    it co-exist with competing traffic on the path, in a "clean"
    environment with new routers and with the unambiguous specification
    of the use of alternate-ECN semantics?

    These issues are discussed in Section 5 below.


3.  Signalling the Use of Alternate ECN Semantics

    This section discusses question (1) from Section 2:

    (1) How does the connection indicate to the router that its packets
    are using alternate-ECN semantics?  Is the specification of
    alternate-ECN semantics robust and unambiguous?  If not, is this a
    problem?

    The assumption of this document is that when alternate semantics are
    defined for the ECN field, a codepoint in the diffserv field is used
    to signal the use of these alternate ECN semantics to the router.
    That is, the end host sets the codepoint in the diffserv field to
    indicate to routers that alternate semantics to the ECN field are
    being used.  Routers that understand this diffserv codepoint would
    know to use the alternate semantics for interpreting and setting the
    ECN field.  Old ECN-capable routers that do not understand this
    diffserv codepoint would use the default ECN semantics in
    interpreting and setting the ECN field.

    In general, the diffserv codepoints are used to signal the per-hop
    behavior at router queues.  One possibility would be to use one



Floyd                                               Section 3.  [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    diffserv codepoint to signal a per-hop behavior with the default ECN
    semantics, and a separate diffserv codepoint to signal a similar
    per-hop behavior with the alternate ECN semantics.  Another
    possibility would be to use a diffserv codepoint to signal the use
    of best-effort per-hop queueing and scheduling behavior, but with
    alternate ECN semantics.  A detailed discussion of these issues is
    beyond the scope of this document.

    We note that this discussion does not exclude the possibility of
    using other methods, including out-of-band mechanisms, for
    signalling the use of alternate semantics for the ECN field.  The
    considerations in the rest of this document apply regardless of the
    method used to signal the use of alternate semantics for the ECN
    field.


3.1.  Using the Diffserv Field for Signalling

    We note that the default ECN semantics defined in RFC 3168 are the
    current default semantics for the ECN field, regardless of the
    contents of any other fields in the IP header.  In particular, the
    default ECN semantics apply for more than best-effort traffic with a
    codepoint of '000000' for the diffserv field - the default ECN
    semantics currently apply regardless of the contents of the diffserv
    field.

    There are two ways to use the diffserv field to signal the use of
    alternate ECN semantics.  One way is to use an existing diffserv
    codepoint, and to modify the current definition of that codepoint,
    through approved IETF processes, to specify the use of alternate ECN
    semantics with that codepoint.  A second way is to define a new
    diffserv codepoint, and to specify the use of alternate ECN
    semantics with that codepoint.  We note that the first of these two
    mechanisms raises the possibility that some routers along the path
    will understand the diffserv codepoint but will use the default ECN
    semantics with this diffserv codepoint, or won't use ECN at all, and
    that other routers will use the alternate ECN semantics with this
    diffserv codepoint.


4.  Issues of Incremental Deployment

    This section discusses questions (2) and (3) posed in Section 2:

    (2) How does the possible presence of old routers affect the
    performance of the alternate-ECN connections?

    (3) How does the possible presence of old routers affect the co-



Floyd                                               Section 4.  [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    existence of the alternate-ECN traffic with competing traffic on the
    path?

    When alternate semantics are defined for the ECN field, it is
    necessary to ensure that there are no problems caused by old routers
    along the path that don't understand the alternate ECN semantics.

    One possible problem is that of poor performance for the alternate-
    ECN traffic.  Is it essential to the performance of the alternate-
    ECN traffic that all routers along the path understand the
    alternate-ECN semantics?  If not, what are the possible
    consequences, for the alternate-ECN traffic itself, when some old
    routers along the path don't understand the alternate-ECN semantics?
    These issues have to be answered in the context of each specific
    proposal for alternate ECN semantics.

    A second specific problem is that of possible unfair competition
    with other traffic along the path.  If there is an old router along
    the path that doesn't use ECN, that old router could drop packets
    from the alternate-ECN traffic, and expect the alternate-ECN traffic
    to reduce its sending rate as a result.  Does the alternate-ECN
    traffic respond to packet drops as an indication of congestion?


                                   |--------|
      Alternate-ECN traffic ---->  |        | ---> CE-marked packet
                                   |  Old   |
      Non-ECN traffic ---------->  | Router | ---> dropped packet
                                   |        |
      RFC-3168 ECN traffic ----->  |        | ---> CE-marked packet
                                   |--------|

      Figure 1: Alternate-ECN traffic with an old router using RFC-3168 ECN.


    Similarly, what if there is an old router along the path that
    understands only the default ECN semantics from RFC-3168, as in
    Figure 1 above?  In times of congestion, the old default-ECN router
    could see an alternate-ECN packet with one of the ECN-Capable
    Transport (ECT) codepoints set in the ECN field in the IP header, as
    defined in RFC 3168, and set the Congestion Experienced (CE)
    codepoint in the ECN field as an alternative to dropping the packet.
    The router in this case would expect the alternate-ECN connection to
    respond, in terms of congestion control, as it would if the packet
    has been dropped.  If the alternate-ECN traffic fails to respond
    appropriately to the CE codepoint being set by an old router, this
    could increase the aggregate traffic arriving at the old router,
    resulting in an increase in the packet-marking and packet-dropping



Floyd                                               Section 4.  [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    rates at that router, further resulting in the alternate-ECN traffic
    crowding out the other traffic competing for bandwidth on that link.

    Basically, there are three possibilities for avoiding scenarios
    where the presence of old routers along the path results in the
    alternate-ECN traffic competing unfairly  with other traffic along
    the path:

    Option 1:  Alternate-ECN traffic is clearly understood as unsafe for
    deployment in the global Internet; or

    Option 2:  All alternate-ECN traffic deploys some mechanism for
    verifying that all routers on the path understand and agree to use
    the alternate ECN semantics for this traffic; or

    Option 3:  The alternate-ECN semantics are defined in such a way as
    to ensure the fair and peaceful co-existence of the alternate-ECN
    traffic with best-effort and other traffic, even in environments
    that include old routers that do not understand the alternate-ECN
    semantics.

    Each of these alternatives is explored in more detail below.


4.1.  Option 1:  Unsafe for Deployment in the Internet

    The first option specified above is for the alternate-ECN traffic to
    be clearly understood as only suitable for enclosed environments,
    and as unsafe for deployment in the global Internet.  This would
    mean that it would be unsafe for packets using the alternate ECN
    semantics to be unleashed in the global Internet, in order to avoid
    the chance of the alternate-ECN traffic traversing an old router
    that don't understand the alternate semantics.  This document
    doesn't comment on whether a mechanism would be required to ensure
    that the alternate-ECN semantics would not be let loose on the
    global Internet.  This document also doesn't comment on the chances
    that this scenario would be considered acceptable for
    standardization by the IETF community.


4.2.  Option 2:  Verification that Routers Understand the Alternate
Semantics

    The second option specified above is for the alternate-ECN traffic
    to include a mechanism for ensuring that all routers along the path
    understand and agree to the use of the alternate ECN semantics for
    this traffic.  As an example, such a mechanism could consist of a
    field in an IP option that all routers along the path decrement if



Floyd                                             Section 4.2.  [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    they agree to use the alternate ECN semantics with this traffic.  (A
    similar mechanism is proposed for Quick-Start, for verifying that
    all of the routers along the path understand the Quick-Start IP
    Option [QuickStart].)  Using such a mechanism, a sender could have
    reasonable assurance that the packets that are sent specifying the
    use of alternate ECN semantics only traverse routers that in fact
    understand and agree to use these alternate semantics for these
    packets.

    Such a mechanism should be robust in the presence of paths with load
    balancing, and in the presence of routing changes in the middle of a
    connection.


4.3.  Option 3:  Friendly Co-existence with Competing Traffic

    The third option specified above is for the alternate ECN semantics
    to be defined so that traffic using the alternate semantics would
    co-exist safely in the Internet on a path with one or more old
    routers that use only the default ECN semantics.  In this scenario,
    a connection sending alternate-ECN traffic would have to respond
    appropriately to a CE packet (a packet with the ECN codepoint "11")
    received at the receiver, using a conformant congestion control
    response.  Hopefully, the connection sending alternate-ECN traffic
    would also respond appropriately to a dropped packet, that could be
    a congestion indication from a router that doesn't use ECN.

    RFC 3168 defines the default ECN semantics as follows:

    "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.  For example, for ECN-Capable TCP the
    source TCP is required to halve its congestion window for any window
    of data containing either a packet drop or an ECN indication."

    The only conformant congestion control mechanisms currently
    standardized in the IETF are TCP [RFC2581] and protocols using TCP-
    like congestion control (e.g., SCTP [RFC2960], DCCP with CCID-2
    [DCCP]), and TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) and protocols with
    TFRC-like congestion control (e.g., DCCP using CCID-3 [DCCP]).  TCP
    uses Additive-Increase Multiplicative-Decrease congestion control,
    and responds to the loss or ECN-marking of a single packet by
    halving its congestion window.  In contrast, the equation-based
    congestion control mechanism in TFRC estimates the loss event rate
    over some period of time, and uses a sending rate that would be
    comparable, in packets per round-trip-time, to that of a TCP
    connection experiencing the same loss event rate.



Floyd                                             Section 4.3.  [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    So what are the requirements in order for alternate-ECN traffic to
    compete appropriately with other traffic on a path through an old
    router that doesn't understand the alternate ECN semantics (and
    therefore might be using the default ECN semantics)?  The first and
    second requirements below concern compatibility between traffic
    using alternate ECN semantics and routers using default ECN
    semantics.

    The first requirement for compatibility with routers using default
    ECN is that if a packet is marked with the ECN codepoint "11" in the
    network, this marking is not changed on the packet's way to the
    receiver (unless the packet is dropped before it reaches the
    receiver).  This requirement is necessary to ensure that congestion
    indications from a default-ECN router make it to the transport
    receiver.

    A second requirement for compatibility with routers using default
    ECN is that the end-nodes respond in a TCP-friendly manner to
    packets received that are marked with the ECN codepoint "11"
    (because these packets might have come from a congested router that
    understands only the default ECN semantics).  This would ensure that
    the traffic using the alternate semantics does not `bully' competing
    traffic that it might encounter along the path, and does not drive
    up congestion on the shared link inappropriately.

    Additional requirements concern compatibility between traffic using
    default ECN semantics and routers using alternate ECN semantics.
    This situation could occur if a diff-serv codepoint using default
    ECN semantics is redefined to use alternate ECN semantics, and
    traffic from an "old" source traverses a "new" router.  If the
    router "knows" that a packet is from a sender using alternate
    semantics (e.g., because the packet is using a certain diff-serv
    codepoint, and all packets with that diff-serv codepoint use
    alternate semantics for the ECN field), then the requirements below
    are not necessary, and the rules for the alternate semantics apply.

    A requirement for compatibility with end-nodes using default ECN is
    that if a packet that *could* be using default semantics is marked
    with the ECN codepoint "00", this marking must not be changed to
    "01", "10", or "11" in the network.  This prevents the packet from
    being represented incorrectly to a default ECN router downstream as
    ECN-Capable.  Similarly, if a packet that *could* be using default
    semantics is marked with the ECN codepoint "01", then this codepoint
    should not be changed to "10" in the network (and a "10" codepoint
    should not be changed to "01").  This requirement is necessary to
    avoid interference with the transport protocol's use of the ECN
    nonce.




Floyd                                             Section 4.3.  [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    As discussed earlier, the current conformant congestion control
    responses to a dropped or default-ECN-marked packet consist of TCP
    and TCP-like congestion control, and of TFRC (TCP-Friendly Rate
    Control).  Another possible response considered in RFC 3714, but not
    standardized in a standards-track document, is that of simply
    terminating an alternate-ECN connection for a period of time if the
    long-term sending rate is higher that would be that of a TCP
    connection experiencing the same packet dropping or marking rates
    [RFC3714].  We note that the use of such a congestion control
    response to CE-marked packets would require specification of time
    constants for measuring the loss rates and for stopping
    transmission, and would require a consideration of issues of packet
    size.


5.  Evaluation of the Alternate-ECN Semantics

    This section discusses question (4) posed in Section 2:

    (4) How well does the alternate-ECN traffic perform, and how well
    does it co-exist with competing traffic on the path, in a "clean"
    environment with new routers and with the unambiguous specification
    of the use of alternate-ECN semantics?


5.1.  Verification of Feedback from the Router

    One issue in evaluating the alternate-ECN semantics concerns
    mechanisms to discourage lying from the transport receiver to the
    transport sender.  In many cases the sender is a server that has an
    interest in using the alternate-ECN semantics correctly, while the
    receiver has more incentives for lying about the congestion
    experienced along the path.

    In the default ECN semantics, two of the four ECN codepoints are
    used for ECN-Capable(0) and ECN-Capable(1).  The use of two
    codepoints for ECN-Capable, instead of one, permits the data sender
    to verify receiver's reports that packets were actually received
    unmarked at the receiver.  In particular, the sender can specify
    that the receiver report to the sender whether each unmarked packet
    was received ECN-Capable(0) or ECN-Capable(1), as discussed in RFC
    3540 [RFC 3540].

    If alternate semantics for the ECN codepoint don't include the use
    of two separate codepoints to indicate ECN-Capable, then the
    connections using those semantics have lost the ability to verify
    that the data receiver is accurately reporting the received ECN
    codepoint to the data sender.  In this case, it might be necessary



Floyd                                            Section 5.1.  [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    for the alternate-ECN framework to include alternate mechanisms for
    ensuring that the data receiver is reporting feedback appropriately
    to the sender.


5.2.  Co-existence with Competing Traffic

    A second general issue concerns the co-existence of alternate-ECN
    traffic with competing traffic along the path, in a clean
    environment where all routers understand and are willing to use the
    alternate-ECN semantics for the traffic that specifies its use.

    If the traffic using the alternate-ECN semantics is best-effort
    traffic, then it is subject to the general requirement of fair
    competition with TCP and other traffic along the path [RFC2914].

    If the traffic using the alternate-ECN semantics is diffserv
    traffic, then the requirements are governed by the overall
    guidelines for that class of diffserv traffic.  It is beyond the
    scope of this document to specify the requirements, if any, for the
    co-existence of diffserv traffic with other traffic on the link;
    this should be addressed in the specification of the diffserv
    codepoint itself.


5.3.  A General Evaluation of the Alternate-ECN Semantics

    A third general issue concerns the evaluation of the general merits
    of the proposed alternate-ECN semantics.  Again, it would be beyond
    the scope of this document to specify requirements for the general
    evaluation of alternate-ECN semantics.


6.  Who Wants to Use Alternate Semantics for the ECN Codepoint?

    There have been a number of proposals in the IETF and in the
    research community for alternate semantics for the ECN codepoint
    [ECN].  One such proposal, [BCF05], proposes an alternate-ECN
    semantics for real-time inelastic traffic such as voice, video
    conferencing, and multimedia streaming in DiffServ networks.  In
    this proposal, the alternate-ECN semantics would provide information
    about two levels of congestion experienced along the path, where "it
    is left up to the application designers to define how end-systems
    should react to ECN bit marking" [BCF05].  Some of the other
    proposals for alternate ECN semantics are listed on the ECN Web Page
    [ECN].





Floyd                                              Section 6.  [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


7.  Security Considerations

    This document doesn't propose any new mechanisms for the Internet
    protocol, and therefore doesn't introduce any new security
    considerations.


8.  Acknowledgements

    This document is based in part on conversations with Jozef Babiarz,
    Kwok Ho Chan, and Victor Firoiu on their proposal for an alternate
    use of the ECN field in DiffServ environments.  Many thanks to
    Francois Le Faucheur for feedback recommending that the document
    include a section at the beginning discussing the potential issues
    that need to be addressed.  Thanks also to Fred Baker, David Black,
    Gorry Fairhurst, and to members of the TSVWG working group for
    feedback on these issues.


9.  Conclusions

    This document has discussed some of the issues to be considered in
    the specification of alternate semantics for the ECN field in the IP
    header.


10.  Normative References


11.  Informative References

    [BCF05] J. Babiarz, K. Chan, and V. Firoiu, Congestion Notification
    Process for Real-Time Traffic, internet-draft draft-babiarz-tsvwg-
    rtecn-03, work in progress, February 2005.

    [DCCP] DCCP Web Page, URL "http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/".

    [ECN] ECN Web Page, URL "www.icir.org/floyd/ecn.html".

    [QuickStart] Quick-Start Web Page, URL
    "http://www.icir.org/floyd/quickstart.html".

    [RFC2581] M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens, TCP Congestion
    Control, RFC 2581, Proposed Standard, April 1999.

    [RFC2914] S. Floyd, Congestion Control Principles, RFC 2914, Best
    Current Practice, September 2000.




Floyd                                             Section 11.  [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


    [RFC2960] R. Stewart et al, Stream Control Transmission Protocol,
    RFC 2960, October 2000.

    [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K.K., Floyd, S., and Black, D., The Addition
    of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP, RFC 3168, Proposed
    Standard, September 2001.

    [RFC3540] N. Spring, D. Wetherall, and D. Ely, Robust Explicit
    Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces, RFC 3540,
    Experimental, June 2003.

    [RFC3714] S. Floyd and J. Kempf, Editors, IAB Concerns Regarding
    Congestion Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet, RFC 3714,
    Informational, March 2004.



IANA Considerations

    There are no IANA considerations in this document.


AUTHORS' ADDRESSES


    Sally Floyd
    Phone: +1 (510) 666-2989
    ICIR (ICSI Center for Internet Research)
    Email: floyd@icir.org
    URL: http://www.icir.org/floyd/


Full Copyright Statement

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2005.  This document is subject
    to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
    except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

    This document and the information contained herein are provided on
    an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
    REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
    INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
    IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
    THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.






Floyd                                                          [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2006                July 2005


Intellectual Property

    The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
    Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
    to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
    in this document or the extent to which any license under such
    rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
    it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
    Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
    documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

    Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
    assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
    attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
    of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
    specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
    at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

    The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
    copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
    this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
    ipr@ietf.org.




























Floyd                                                          [Page 14]