Re: [Dots] [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block (Congestion Control)

[[e-mail]]

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Christian Amsüss [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 23 décembre 2020 11:39
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail] WG
> ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block
> (Congestion Control)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 09:14:09AM +0000,
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > You are completely right that the default probing-rate is to be
> > increased for the DOTS case. FYI, this is why we went with the
> > following in RFC8782:
> >
> > We avoided to include a pointer to these details as these are
> > application-specific and that, even if the draft is motivated by
> the
> > DOTS use case, other applications can make use of the new block
> > functionality.
> 
> At least a one-line reference into there would be helpful when
> reading the congestion control section. It can be phrased as an
> example ("For the particular use case of DOTS, these parameters are
> negotiated; even when not negotiated, that application uses altered
> defaults as in
> [ref-into-dots]") to avoid the impression of general applicability,
> but some example *should* be given, for without changed parameters
> the Q-Block mechanism is useless (3 hour wait if all 10 initial
> messages are lost).

[Med] OK. I added this note: 

      Note: For the particular DOTS application, PROBING_RATE and other
      transmission parameters are negotiated between peers.  Even when
      not negotiated, the DOTS application uses customized defaults as
      discussed in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC8782].

> 
> > For NSTART, we already have the following:
> >
> >   "NSTART will also need to be increased from the default
> >    (1) to get faster transmission rates."
> 
> It would enhance readability if that were mentioned in the
> congestion control section.

[Med] Good point. 

> 
> It may help to draw the parallel to the MAX_PAYLOADS of the non-
> confirmable case, or to talk more about the hybrid transmission (CON
> only after some blocks; does that have a name? see also comment
> around "seems to imply that the full exchange").
> 
> Does DOTS have an altered default here?

[Med] No. 

 Without having *anything*
> about
> non-1 NSTART, the all-CON case may not even be worth having in an
> example, as there's nothing even referenced where it could make
> sense.

[Med] We do already say the following for the CON examples:

"These examples assume NSTART has been increased to at least 4."

Again, these examples are here to generalize the procedure rather than keeping it DOTS-centric. 

> 
> Best regards
> Christian
> 
> --
> To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to
> greater powers.
>   -- Bene Gesserit axiom

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.