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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 25 November 2014 00:41 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 959161A6FF6 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:41:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 syXkNrLKI4lX for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9A1E1A6FBF for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kq14so10542744pab.6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:41:40 -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=cvoykpf8aWm8M5oPzhesOtcKs2HOKGkcaYfan9zWjXs=; b=FWJ6FAhObaXFQcOz9ElIpHM2//z+5iWb3ulrBGp3k3IWSaoIOrlWx9bUd4oKzFiZqX 6Sx2WipJF6mh1C/SXTYgZRpaZHd9U0x34n+zxIo2096irVkmccvCIsuk2S7LUmz1vo2f idR0If51UHhucRScBDbJs/pIez409CAqreGa88ZoiR3FMZKkczwJXtGIkE7leCseeoT3 YbbJAfLXMGKUfLH80jU8XJFuTUB8hxps0/tIcZYE36hisc6sOR8NXhV31cGqpGfo1+yP 7oHjO4nVU+opL1ntU5ZNdJUKwUWgv+qSdaRAo2OV+MVIesAFh51YuXishCnNN5mL3YUm i2hQ==
X-Received: by 10.70.91.40 with SMTP id cb8mr38575902pdb.19.1416876100098; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.216.38.108] (sc-cs-567-laptop.cs.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kk1sm13466741pbd.14.2014.11.24.16.41.37 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5473D042.5040804@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:41:38 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
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/ufKLeov-d8E9Wcoc0FwrTKQTmxk
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:41:42 -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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2014-11-25
IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-04
IESG Telechat date:

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

Comment:
--------

This is a well written document.


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.