[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37151A07BC for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:45:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 2xL5TAyGFm55 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com (mail-pd0-f180.google.com [209.85.192.180]) (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 8B96F1A01CB for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdbnh10 with SMTP id nh10so12286396pdb.11 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:45:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fe/r9VUW6OcfdGdaj7QyiWb50QladlK8eFjNVwbg1dY=; b=TtGeh12jObcrGtnDfS3gsWNVJBGFXcCMEWUsdKFJ47q1LO/Ua5vBpt1lavR1iWVgho CeI9+QgwVNJvvDEa7K4WtCflIgqOZp6nWYiwzT5QrKGCflAplz6yTuOBD1c3ipVI3X1B cqPHgG0J6M7M7GKCFUx1oKogY5lknMx5NgEKYp+IambEs0IGOs0lP0u75yFyWoW/Ur5B Ih0MZcHqc0LoCgcLrG7urap2IWzDGbRC7EtlOZr46WiwQi+FeoqrYg9aPC0WLg1+oQAa VAclS4TtQtLu0NQwIgYysK5HbUwvFs+6f23YgMxfrSquP1BtsFtqqeP1LdFAx8p7ROvQ SgCw==
X-Received: by 10.68.185.194 with SMTP id fe2mr11638339pbc.136.1423799145214; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4e17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4e17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pu10sm514690pdb.27.2015.02.12.19.45.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DD736E.7060107@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:45:50 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UpUNQmaRGPstFCDpksd314kv66E>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:45:47 -0000

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>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-02-13
IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-04
IESG Telechat date: 2015-02-19

Summary: Almost ready
--------

Comment:
--------

This is a well written document. However, I saw no response to my LC
review (2014-11-25) so it is repeated below.

Minor issues:
-------------

There's quite a lot of discussion of the issues that would be caused by
lost ACKs, but it's also stated that "(in the worst case, loss will still
be available as a congestion signal of last resort)" and "However, it
should be noted that ECN feedback is not the last resort against
congestion collapse, because if there is insufficient response to
ECN, loss will ensue, and TCP will still react appropriately to loss."

This doesn't address the issue that on physically lossy networks
(e.g. the networks that more and more user devices live on), TCP does
*not* react appropriately to loss, because it treats it as a congestion
signal, and slows down when that is completely the wrong thing to do.

I think that the draft should recognise the fact that when a physically
lossy network is involved, ACK loss will be a real issue at exactly
the same time that conventional TCP is liable to misdiagnose congestion.