IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Mon, 08 January 2018 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 424861273E2 for <ecn-in-quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 03:23:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 w0tX7xRqquEg for <ecn-in-quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 03:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 A496D1243FE for <ecn-in-quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 03:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CAFD9E7FAFAB; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:22:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:22:57 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.214]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 19:22:49 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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+GfAJf8wAC53rA
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 11:22:48 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD85D4BA@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <HE1PR0702MB3625DEC891E57DB02480621AC2130@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0702MB3625DEC891E57DB02480621AC2130@HE1PR0702MB3625.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.69]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD85D4BADGGEMM506MBXchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecn-in-quic/gMed-ntEdE8I85ZZaoLzLrapgK8>
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 11:23:03 -0000

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
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
==================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email