Re: [Ecn-in-quic] ECN in QUIC update and questions

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Mon, 08 January 2018 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ecn-in-quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecn-in-quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF4B1243FE for <ecn-in-quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 04:32:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.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 imDaDC9-cJ92 for <ecn-in-quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 04:32:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B1051242F5 for <ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 04:32:41 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f179c9c000007932-86-5a5364e76f61
Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.75]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 99.54.31026.7E4635A5; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:32:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.145) by oa.msg.ericsson.com (153.88.183.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.352.0; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:32:38 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ericsson-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=3fBwalIU0ELFhZE4m8XkUlm5kWqOUQCSrn0/oaC2QlI=; b=b4xfmSETaZKqe1VIbNsSO/GyCYc9DVNkBIFdKczSEAYw7YI55CyOPtitCF5gM7z0Yn9liE/vk+eabNhvHCKnhnyff7GW9ORYEuqiWJtM9wdYBakE+ldgMdwycPNcsznCteNukM6jsTO6nQmWRT/HLDyqKh3W+xdARUecTP1TEV8=
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.6.23) by HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.407.1; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:32:30 +0000
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8468:8225:cde3:850c]) by HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8468:8225:cde3:850c%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0407.004; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:32:30 +0000
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>, "ecn-in-quic@ietf.org" <ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>
CC: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Thread-Topic: ECN in QUIC update and questions
Thread-Index: AdOIZnQBD0hOX0sQSLyS4r+GfAJf8wAC53rAAABaAiAAAbf0gAAAQvCg
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:32:29 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR0702MB362549C11162BC821C74C462C2130@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HE1PR0702MB3625DEC891E57DB02480621AC2130@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD85D4BA@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <HE1PR0702MB36253CFEDE82F8A6675D41D6C2130@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD85D4FB@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD85D4FB@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.176.1.92]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0702MB3772; 7:t4mUH60Zez1Opm+UE4wzgo7oqbBoSJuBAyx6lZuXZpN7Csl/pDu41LxkcQAzBWPlWjFsBgk3v90p+k8HYIGnwHf0Leh5GSLrBMe580IpL4G0Uaahd9y0pHzafxS8G4R3gEg6KiJYtsE2M6zQiwoFHHydkKKv7llPea1oLhJpSmsNZXTZql47Rxi95Yf4vw6FY8BQra/kZKxK/YdBcPvt02Hv+stQw/k8NrwG4Oqqyv8f022GhRp9G9zS62qO8ow8
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 73458768-9675-4fef-9b23-08d55693e258
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020040)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR0702MB3772;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0702MB3772:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR0702MB377243B4B00CE6023EB286BEC2130@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(166708455590820)(50582790962513)(202460600054446)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040470)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(3231023)(944501098)(6041268)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:HE1PR0702MB3772; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:HE1PR0702MB3772;
x-forefront-prvs: 054642504A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(39380400002)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(57704003)(54896002)(9686003)(110136005)(236005)(6306002)(55016002)(316002)(15650500001)(2420400007)(6436002)(53546011)(53936002)(19609705001)(3660700001)(6246003)(14454004)(2906002)(966005)(478600001)(86362001)(66066001)(3280700002)(102836004)(106356001)(10710500007)(3846002)(76176011)(59450400001)(81156014)(81166006)(99286004)(7696005)(8676002)(790700001)(7736002)(93886005)(2950100002)(229853002)(6506007)(74316002)(2900100001)(6116002)(68736007)(105586002)(5660300001)(7110500001)(606006)(25786009)(4326008)(97736004)(8936002)(33656002)(5250100002)(2501003)(9326002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0702MB3772; H:HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:3; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 7bfSkPcwpl/7YScc/Q75926Z93nKBJiCqxqNrwesKTgaWymZQ3b05AwfG/pbBEcfrLw317MlCRD4N0YNENvqJA==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HE1PR0702MB362549C11162BC821C74C462C2130HE1PR0702MB3625_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 73458768-9675-4fef-9b23-08d55693e258
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jan 2018 12:32:29.9494 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0702MB3772
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA02Se0hTcRTH+d17d3c1B9c182AJMuwPM2dpyASx+keU6MWSZGI59KKSzrFr miHhawqWkJqoM/CRr1RY2pxSajlFWUKmRKg9xNREfCArX/lK91vgf59zvuf8vuccfgwp7hS4 MQnqFE6rViVKaUeqIqLzis98rEJ5Lq/ttDwrv1koH1yvJ+TWwRHqEhmaO7AsCK2r2yJCs9dr 6Ruk0jEolktMSOW0vsHRjvFjeUMCzbwBPfg095nMRJN6VIAcGGAvwHTrX6oAOTJith/Bk/U5 ezCEQKcvtgUUW0hC44d2IVZKCdg0WBAOfiFo7TBRh4/RbBC8NG8cCAwjYSNhtPv2YZpkw2Gh udHmd5z1gdxtK3nIElYGPaYmAeYQmF5btdVQrCesrOzYakRsNBQXDBDYa5iAqd8LtgYH9hZM jhTZGLHuMLXxg8JmrjA5W0Xg5Vio6x4hMbvAwsyeALMH7Iz9pDG7w1jVY9sywJoIeFf23N4s g46iZfuVroJlu0qIiwoRZG1+EWLhLOy2fCPwFDFgnSi0OyTDq/2Pds6A/j/7NG42kLDY9do+ 0inImZ4QPkUy/ZHJMSdDZdMbSm87gTNYKmYpnJfBeOkzGrM3NNQskph9oHzPTB3NVyNhM3Lh OZ5PivPzl3HahBieT1bL1FxKOzr4Tn3GbZ8u1LJ42YxYBkmdRN7hCqVYoErl05PMCBhSKhGJ Iw9SolhV+kNOm3xXez+R483oJENJXUWWMJFSzMapUrh7HKfhtP9VgnFwy0Qyj7UGbWB+MG3W NRu/D86s9mqyjVuy2cyaJUPPtYCMeucWSdExQ6XVootJWyojp0skW32pdPVqZKKfzhrIPSoZ X73Dn0hoe6Fwve47ULtb3h8SINJbG8JGA7y+ppk0nVHLORFve5s6ojwVcmPwSpVT3/vem17+ U14XM4ZNJinFx6vOnyG1vOofTI1euUoDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecn-in-quic/PPBacDYpx7xklp9vAzSGFD3vTmU>
Subject: Re: [Ecn-in-quic] ECN in QUIC update and questions
X-BeenThere: ecn-in-quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "ECN in the QUIC protocol discussion list." <ecn-in-quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecn-in-quic>, <mailto:ecn-in-quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecn-in-quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecn-in-quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecn-in-quic>, <mailto:ecn-in-quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:32:45 -0000

Hi

As regards to the handling of ECT(0) I would say that https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-05 provides input.
We can probably specify the response for ECT(0) based CE marking (classic) in the recovery draft as a new section
4.7.7 On CE

ECT(1) handling is still a bit open, it should be scalable, similar to DCTCP but it does not exclude other congestion control algorithms, this is work in progress. I believe though that it is still a bit too early to specify the congestion control algorithm for ECT(1).

/Ingemar


From: Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.even@huawei.com]
Sent: den 8 januari 2018 13:21
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>; ecn-in-quic@ietf.org
Cc: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Subject: RE: ECN in QUIC update and questions

Hi,

My understanding from ECN experiments draft  "It is essential that any such change in ECN congestion marking behavior be counterbalanced by use of a different IETF-approved congestion response to CE marks at the sender"

is that there must be different congestion response for ECT(0) and ECT(1) and it is not specified in ECN experiments draft.

So currently we will not have consistent congestion handling for the two ECT until we specify the congestion handling in QUIC or have some reference.

Roni

From: Ingemar Johansson S [mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 1:30 PM
To: Roni Even (A); ecn-in-quic@ietf.org<mailto:ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>
Cc: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Subject: RE: ECN in QUIC update and questions

Hi

Thanks, I corrected the bytes-packet error. The document will not talk about congestion handling in this version, this is left was a later exercise and the intention is that ECT(0) and ECT(1) should be handled as per the recommendations in the  ECN experiments draft (soon RFC). The use of ECT(0) or ECT(1) will be a sender decision as the congestion control is on the sender side.

/Ingemar


From: Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.even@huawei.com]
Sent: den 8 januari 2018 12:23
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com<mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>>; ecn-in-quic@ietf.org<mailto:ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>
Cc: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com<mailto:koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>>
Subject: RE: ECN in QUIC update and questions

Hi,

I noticed that there are still places where bytes are used instead of packets "sufficient with a report of accumulated number of bytes " and "number of ECT marked bytes(or packets) ".

Are you going to say something about when to use ECT(0) and when ECT(1). Is this a sender decision and how is it made?

I understand that the document will not talk about congestion handling, so is a different congestion handling for ECT(0) and ECT(1) will be discussed in the QUIC recovery draft or do we need another document?

Roni Even

From: Ecn-in-quic [mailto:ecn-in-quic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ingemar Johansson S
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 11:53 AM
To: ecn-in-quic@ietf.org<mailto:ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S; De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Subject: [Ecn-in-quic] ECN in QUIC update and questions

Hi

Hope that you have started the new year with lots of new energy.
We (me and Koen) have updated https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/wiki/ECN-in-QUIC . The main changes are that a lot of superfluous text is removed, for instance there is now only 1 alternative for the ACK+ECN frame. In addition all the extra text that discussed the timestamps is now gone. The ECN capability check is also clarified. Furthermore it is made possible to set ECT also after the ECN capability check.

There are some questions

  1.  I have added some text that outlines how the overhead can be reduced, this text is somewhat speculative and needs more details to qualify as specification text. Should we have this text in the first draft version or do you prefer that it is removed ?.
  2.  Given that this work is presented at the interim, is it necessary to write up a draft or is it sufficient to present the wiki ?


/Ingemar

==================================
Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc.
Master Researcher

Ericsson Research
Network Protocols & E2E Performance
Labratoriegränd 11
971 28, Luleå, Sweden
Phone +46-1071 43042
SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com<mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
www.ericsson.com

The world is full of magical things patiently
    waiting for our wits to grow sharper
               Bertrand Russell
==================================