Re: [conex] TPC mods: Sender-side Modifications

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

How about:

"This section gives an overview of actions that need to be taken by a TCP sender 
that would like to use ConEx signaling."

A reference to the subsequent sections is given in the last paragraph below. Is 
this sufficient for you?

Mirja



On 03.11.2014 07:59, Nandita Dukkipati wrote:
> Mirja,
>
> What exactly do you intend the Section 2 to be - is this Section meant to
> be an an Overview of the sender side modifications? If so, can we
> explicitly state so.
>
> I am asking because the actual details of the sender size modifications are
> described in Section 3 and 4.
>
> A couple of comments in line.
>
>>
>>
>> 2.  Sender-side Modifications
>>
>> <Please write 1-2 introductory sentences describing the high level bits
> that a reader should expect in this Section. This will also serve as a
> smooth transition into this Section.>
>
>
>>     A ConEx sender MUST negotiate for both SACK and ECN or the more
>>     accurate ECN feedback in the TCP handshake if these TCP extension are
>>     available at the sender.  Thus a ConEx SHOULD also implement SACK and
>>     ECN.
>
>
> "Thus a ConEx SHOULD..." -> This a ConEx sender SHOULD...
>
>
>> Depending on the capability of the receiver, the following
>>     operation modes exist:
>>
>>     o  SACK-accECN-ConEx (SACK and accurate ECN feedback)
>>
>>     o  accECN-ConEx (no SACK but accurate ECN feedback)
>>
>>     o  ECN-ConEx (no SACK and no accurate ECN feedback but 'classic' ECN)
>>
>>     o  SACK-ECN-ConEx (SACK and 'classic' instead of accurate ECN)
>>
>>     o  SACK-ConEx (SACK but no ECN at all)
>>
>>     o  Basic-ConEx (neither SACK nor ECN)
>>
>>     A ConEx sender MUST expose all congestion information to the network
>>     according to the congestion information received by ECN or based on
>>     loss information provided by the TCP feedback loop.  A TCP sender
>>     SHOULD account congestion byte-wise (and not packet-wise).  A sender
>>     MUST mark subsequent packets (after the congestion notification) with
>>     the respective ConEx bit in the IP header.  Furthermore, a ConEx
>>     sender must send enough credit to cover all experienced congestion
>>     for the connection so far, as well as the risk of congestion for the
>>     current transmission (see Section 4.2.
>>
>>     With SACK only the number of lost payload bytes is known, but not the
>>     number of packets carrying these bytes.  With classic ECN only an
>>     indication is given that a marking occurred but not the exact number
>>     of payload bytes nor packets.  As network congestion is usually byte-
>>     congestion [draft-briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark], the exact number of
>>     bytes should be taken into account, if available, to make the ConEx
>>     signal as exact as possible.
>>
>>     Detailed mechanisms for congestion accounting in each operation mode
>>     are described in the next section.  Further handling of the IPv6 bits
>>     itself if congestion was accounted is described in the subsequent
>>     section afterwards.
>>
>>
>