Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12
Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 13:17 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B251B2BD0; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kXTB1Y9uIAiH; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F06511B2BB0; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) by EVMHR67-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:17:43 +0100
Received: from EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.196.177) by EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:17:40 +0100
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.196.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:17:35 +0100
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.130.93]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s78DHX8w006624; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:17:33 +0100
Message-ID: <201408081317.s78DHX8w006624@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:17:33 +0100
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_262349439==.ALT"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/oHczDdPm_dJLw6MZpS6Ssv9YKI8
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, conex@ietf.org, draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex/>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:17:54 -0000
Robert, We're glad you found it accessible. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency between this, 7141 & 6789 - I (Bob) am impressed given I was a co-author of all of them and I hadn't noticed. We have suggested edits below to remove the inconsistency, moving up the last para and adding some explanatory text (unlike the original text, it is not indented). Ideally, RFC6789 should have said that its definition of congestion-volume is applicable to today's Internet and may change. Given most RFCs only apply to today's Internet, we don't think we need to go to the trouble of updating 6789. So, instead, we have qualified the applicability of 6789 in this document. ======================================================================= CURRENT: Whether to use bytes or packets is not obvious. For instance, the most expensive links in the Internet, in terms of cost per bit, are all at lower data rates, where transmission times are large and packet sizes are important. In order for a policy to consider wire time, it needs to know the number of congested bytes. However, high speed networking equipment and the transport protocols themselves sometimes gauge resource consumption and congestion in terms of packets. This document does not take a strong position on this issue. However, a ConEx encoding will need to explicitly specify whether it assumes units of bytes or packets consistently for both congestion indications and ConEx markings (see network layer requirement E in Section 3.3). It may help to refer to the guidance in [RFC7141]. [RFC7141] advises that congestion indications should be interpreted in units of bytes when responding to congestion, at least on today's Internet. In any TCP implementation this is simple to achieve for varying size packets, given TCP SACK tracks losses in bytes. If an encoding is specified in units of bytes, the encoding should also specify which headers to include in the size of a packet (see network layer requirement F in Section 3.3). SUGGESTED: Whether to use bytes or packets is not obvious. For instance, the most expensive links in the Internet, in terms of cost per bit, are all at lower data rates, where transmission times are large and packet sizes are important. In order for a policy to consider wire time, it needs to know the number of congested bytes. However, high speed networking equipment and the transport protocols themselves sometimes gauge resource consumption and congestion in terms of packets. [RFC7141] advises that congestion indications should be interpreted in units of bytes when responding to congestion, at least on today's Internet. [RFC6789] takes the same view in its definition of congestion-volume, again for today's Internet. In any TCP implementation this is simple to achieve for varying size packets, given TCP SACK tracks losses in bytes. If an encoding is specified in units of bytes, the encoding should also specify which headers to include in the size of a packet (see network layer requirement F in Section 3.3). RFC 7141 constructs an argument for why equipment tends to be built so that the bottleneck will be the bit-carrying capacity of its interfaces not its packet processing capacity. However, RFC 7141 acknowledges that the position may change in future, and notes that new techniques will need to be developed to distinguish packet- and bit-congestion. Given this document describes an abstract ConEx mechanism, it is intended to be timeless. Therefore it does not take a strong position on this issue. However, a ConEx encoding will need to explicitly specify whether it assumes units of bytes or packets consistently for both congestion indications and ConEx markings (see network layer requirement E in Section 3.3). It may help to refer to the guidance in [RFC7141]. ======================================================================= Regards Bob Briscoe & Matt Mathis On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Robert Sparks <<mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote: >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at ><<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >you may receive. >Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12 >Reviewer: Robert Sparks >Review Date: 5-Aug-2014 >IETF LC End Date: 8-Aug-2014 >IESG Telechat date: Not on an upcoming telechat agenda >Summary: Ready for publication as Informational >This document handles a complex description problem in a very accessible way. >Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating it. >One minor point to double-check: >This document goes out of its way to push >decisions about measuring in packets, >bytes, or other units to the concrete  encoding >proposals. RFC6789 was explicit >about conex exposing a metric of congestion-volume measured in bytes. >RFC6789 was published a couple of years ago - >has that part of it become stale? >If so, it would be good for this document to explicitly call that out. >If not, (most of section 4.6 goes back to -04 which predates RFC6789), >does this document need to retain the this flexibility in its description? ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT
- [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-abstra… Robert Sparks
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Matt Mathis
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… John Leslie
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… John Leslie
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Robert Sparks
- Re: [conex] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-ab… Matt Mathis
- [conex] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-conex-… Robert Sparks
- Re: [conex] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review: dra… Jari Arkko