Re: [AVTCORE] [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ...  I view the current text as providing implementers with too much
> latitude to ignore ECN-CE marks (e.g., because an implementer doesn't
> want to think about this problem space in the first place).

   Understand, we have at least two proposals to make ECN-CE more frequent
than packet drop would be for non-ECN packets: possibly substantially
more frequent. Unless both are killed off, ECN-CE will show up frequently
enough that closing the flow on ECN-CE would kill too many connections.

   If you want circuit-breaking on such connections, there are two ways:
1. convince the forwarding nodes to drop packets if their queue exceeds
   design capacity; or
2. require the sender to send enough not-ECN-capable packets so that our
   receiver will see enough packet-drops when a circuit-breaker should
   activate.

   (I prefer the first option; but I wouldn't object to the second.)

   There really isn't any way for our circuit-breaker to know _how_much_
more frequent the ECN-CE marks may be. :^( We _will_ be sorry if we
allot the same frequency of CE packets as packet-drops to trigger the
circuit-breaker.

> Could someone propose initial text to qualifies the current "MAY ignore"
> statement?

   Essentially, for the second option, you might propose text to the
effect of:
] 
] If too many ECN-CE packets are received, the sender SHOULD send some
] not-ECN-capable packets to determine whether enough packets along the
] path are being dropped to justify activating our circuit-breaker.

   I'm not enthusiastic about adding that; but it would resolve the issue.

   BTW, I'm 100% convinced that either of the proposals being considered
in TSVWG could bring _substantial_ benefit to RTCWEB traffic.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>