Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977813A126B; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qOY-hC6j34OM; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123F33A126A; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id t3so2532670iol.5; Tue, 04 May 2021 09:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CFBn143OkCBEAuARM/+DI3F37/2X9wez91waM0csUeE=; b=WIBE1ox2zCSDU62o81b21lomPUSioiCW1VdazXVQAdQjBoE2EACwqAaSiPSL3/TEJd NZbiArwH2umz9bfiCkZaf4hdmzuOZvu4SDASSdCH0m6UXIF976WsCXQFR9B8tdvUH1ee eYOhsZoKz8x9UXvL+/Ei2xKl1WiQRmTv/D8TAVENuVQsocUUkdLEcOy5I2iP4VDKPwhe mV9vhvN+MqhKcULBZmK2QotDojuJ08lFQwqiYbljquShddx/DlY1Jjcd/i1z4GhSImHX ydRqUlsta0eKdNTkhCMygvcwovuRcmwtI8Js1ak3qMce/yM9fM8NzTzz4QSs5OgnDsoh kfvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CFBn143OkCBEAuARM/+DI3F37/2X9wez91waM0csUeE=; b=A/rzt6NTfaorZJ9i2YNUbtJPk/Jz7N3PGQCU/tNEivxy2ostio3h/YmlvpvpQVXZlV iMxPXAerdkekJcagskuyqvmQTDGnGzqFLf16IDJAyAExjAS1URl7uU7Y9CK/3p8K5FNK 1xkigu0yt73ygk8sST1zilurcbzkKuK/DCP5kBHPKSSm6UElbxz4UP4niaChEkxA9eUP PVdTbkYPgeT7JXSz31Oth7s34RrtusvWgc/M3o8k80DMD3SwhsrJx9mwxJaGKLXNb12N 8A+mfUKJN8SPFMs62T0TTJHTsHPAR0q+1mvr0g/UfJvxyjv76K8LcIsUErnuMnJODiTi NnVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530GmlrQ6FHwr79CH3agYWy3ksE3kIN6qZCgFu0177utrz/hJ+Fq 1EnekK0QZRfr08rpxF2FFi1nQ9tLcmMuW0ME878=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1UPGGHEZxD30pTbDJ97pq1IbE9UZ77JZQdg0QhOvypFP8evSAc80VAcJKQ/6yFOrSrOkq5/TGae3zryrs8P0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8ad2:: with SMTP id e18mr19614914iot.51.1620147503725; Tue, 04 May 2021 09:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161973861706.19975.3092798532288165336@ietfa.amsl.com> <9640_1619783334_608BEEA5_9640_342_16_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353751A9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAM4esxS7E54VF8PQ=MAPeLJbRi_NY1jZoK15ZWyJhWyE9VVn+Q@mail.gmail.com> <21895_1620118865_60910D51_21895_367_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353764A2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAM4esxS=q-NRUp4ph8oPjwWhY1uznDqH1p5YQ1WfWTy+TAVERg@mail.gmail.com> <18827_1620145989_60917745_18827_231_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303537688C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <18827_1620145989_60917745_18827_231_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303537688C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxS42WUxSTd9DmY3HuqGe6gB_+8uwTCPSFda7dWmQJUGJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>, "marco.tiloca@ri.se" <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007181c605c183fccc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/X8_pLHaiAaI18w_KZcqKiVPyCac>
Subject: Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 16:58:31 -0000

Wonderful, that is satisfactory. I will lift my discuss when the changes
land.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:33 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> Re-,
>
>
>
> We are not seeking for performance enhancement when determining Q-Block
> support. This why I indicated in my first reply that no change to the base
> CC is needed for that. We updated the text as follows:
>
>
>
> OLD:
>
>    With CoAP over UDP, the way a request message is rejected for
>
>    critical options depends on the message type.  A Confirmable message
>
>    with an unrecognized critical option is rejected with a 4.02 (Bad
>
>    Option) response (Section 5.4.1 of [RFC7252]).  A Non-confirmable
>
>    message with an unrecognized critical option is either rejected with
>
>    a Reset message or just silently ignored (Sections 5.4.1 and 4.3 of
>
>    [RFC7252]).  To reliably get a rejection message, it is therefore
>
>    REQUIRED that clients use a Confirmable message for determining
>
>    support for Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options.
>
>
>
> NEW:
>
>    With CoAP over UDP, the way a request message is rejected for
>
>    critical options depends on the message type.  A Confirmable message
>
>    with an unrecognized critical option is rejected with a 4.02 (Bad
>
>    Option) response (Section 5.4.1 of [RFC7252]).  A Non-confirmable
>
>    message with an unrecognized critical option is either rejected with
>
>    a Reset message or just silently ignored (Sections 5.4.1 and 4.3 of
>
>    [RFC7252]).  To reliably get a rejection message, it is therefore
>
>    REQUIRED that clients use a Confirmable message for determining
>
>    support for Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options.  This CON message can be
>
>    sent under base CoAP congestion control setup specified in
>
>    Section 4.7 of [RFC7252] (that is, NSTART does not need to be
>
>    increased).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Martin Duke [mailto:martin.h.duke@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mardi 4 mai 2021 17:28
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> *Cc :* The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org;
> core-chairs@ietf.org; core@ietf.org; marco.tiloca@ri.se
> *Objet :* Re: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>
>
> OK, we've reached understanding on the
> NON_PROBING_WAIT/NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT issue. Thank you for the edit.
>
>
>
> I also now understand that essentially every connection will have a
> Q-block exchange using CON. As this is an integral part of the protocol, I
> don't believe it's sufficient for Sec 7.1 to declare congestion control
> parameters out of scope, unless there's a normative reference to some other
> draft that explains how to do it.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:01 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Martin Duke [mailto:martin.h.duke@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 3 mai 2021 20:57
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> *Cc :* The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org;
> core-chairs@ietf.org; core@ietf.org; marco.tiloca@ri.se
> *Objet :* Re: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 4:48 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I can't reconcile (4.1) with the last sentence in (7.2).
>
> [Med] Why? 4.1 can be done with default CoAP setting. The purpose of this
> CON request is to determine support of the functionality. We made this
> change:
>
> OLD:
>    Congestion control for CON requests and responses is specified in
>    Section 4.7 of [RFC7252].  In order to benefit from faster
>    transmission rates, NSTART will need to be increased from 1.
>    However, the other CON congestion control parameters will need to be
>    tuned to cover this change.  This tuning is not specified in this
>    document given that the applicability scope of the current
>    specification assumes that all requests and responses using Q-Block1
>    and Q-Block2 will be Non-confirmable (Section 3.2).
>
> NEW:
>    Congestion control for CON requests and responses is specified in
>    Section 4.7 of [RFC7252].  In order to benefit from faster
>    transmission rates, NSTART will need to be increased from 1.
>    However, the other CON congestion control parameters will need to be
>    tuned to cover this change.  This tuning is not specified in this
>    document given that the applicability scope of the current
>    specification assumes that all requests and responses using Q-Block1
>    and Q-Block2 will be Non-confirmable (Section 3.2) apart from the
>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    initial Q-Block functionality negotiation.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> Does the functionality negotiation in (4.1) involve something other than
> sending Q-Block options?
>
> *[Med] No. All what is needed is to send the options in a CON message as
> per:  *
>
>
>
>    To indicate support for Q-Block2 responses, the CoAP client MUST
>
>    include the Q-Block2 Option in a GET or similar request (FETCH, for
>
>    example), the Q-Block2 Option in a PUT or similar request (POST, for
>
>    example), or the Q-Block1 Option in a PUT or similar request so that
>
>    the server knows that the client supports this Q-Block functionality
>
>    should it need to send back a body that spans multiple payloads.
>
>    Otherwise, the server would use the Block2 Option (if supported) to
>
>    send back a message body that is too large to fit into a single IP
>
>    packet [RFC7959].
>
>
>
> If so, then (4.1) ought to clarify that it's what you mean. If it's just a
> GET or whatever, then the text here is fine, but there needs to be more on
> congestion control for confirmable messages.
>
>
>
>
>  Moreover, if
> > my reading of (4.1) is correct, it's not sufficient to declare
> > congestion control guidance out of scope when it's a mandated part of
> > the protocol.
> >
>
> >
> > - (7.2) If NON_PROBING_WAIT and NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT both "have the
> > same value as computed for EXCHANGE_LIFETIME", why are they different
> > variables?
>
> [Med] Because they refer to distinct aspects that may be tweaked
> separately: the timeout induced by PROBING_RATE and the one to observe for
> expired partial bodies.
>
>  Or is that they SHOULD have the same value but might not?
> > A normative word would be helpful here.
>
> [Med] Not sure a change is needed here given the definition of the two
> parameters.
>
>
>
> But they can't be tweaked separately! The spec states that they are both
> computed as EXCHANGE_LIFETIME. It does not allow for them to be set
> separately.
>
> *[Med] Ah, I see what confuses you. We made this change:*
>
>
>
> *OLD:*
>
>    NON_PROBING_WAIT is used to limit the potential wait needed
>
>    calculated when using PROBING_RATE.  NON_PROBING_WAIT has the same
>
>    value as computed for EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).
>
>
>
>    NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT is used for expiring partially received bodies.
>
>    NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT has the same value as computed for
>
>    EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).
>
>
>
> *NEW:*
>
>    NON_PROBING_WAIT is used to limit the potential wait needed
>
>    calculated when using PROBING_RATE.  By default, NON_PROBING_WAIT has
>
>    the same value as EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).
>
>
>
>    NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT is used for expiring partially received bodies.
>
>    By default, NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT has the same value as
>
>    EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>