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

John Leslie <> Thu, 16 June 2016 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5612DB45; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.026
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1_vB2Jp_0XzS; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D2012D11E; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 31E1BC9416; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:25:48 -0400
From: John Leslie <>
To: "Black, David" <>
Message-ID: <20160616222548.GB77166@verdi>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <>
Cc: tsvwg <>, "" <>, Colin Perkins <>, IETF AVTCore WG <>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [rtcweb] [tsvwg] WG Last Call on changes: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:25:54 -0000

Black, David <> 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

   (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

> 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 <>