[iccrg] about draft-balasubramanian-iccrg-ledbatplusplus-01

MARCELO GABRIEL BAGNULO BRAUN <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 06 November 2019 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E175F120C79 for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:14:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it.uc3m.es
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3H7eOXMcCr6e for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (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 2BA94120C99 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id y23so15618474ljh.10 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 07:14:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it.uc3m.es; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3RsGy5u87hD/nhFRXW245WG1KDBS3KV+HxtPLY745QY=; b=kh+uWBYM1JADmeFMasCa3VEdsreCDp7nlQ6stxUZQ08d7rnrQ9f1sFsNpnfbLEZ29p jgKtr20DF/vJWNaMH/8lmeP+6EMVfyvoyjPFRHksrxyN+MpxXfRAzJlEkeO7A/bofw/y awNDLiurhGrpsasY4Ht6prnIeRNoqn1dsQIHGpMlssaw1foA7IGF4SZetuMZ3NNAq0sr BlvvnDWz3Nf0hT8wpuI3usYgt9ElX9WwvJrM4guwW4yvz/9oiJAWWLONruMrlP3sy74g OnYb5rm8+f2zEkxxhXIVFXM70qpqDfGQUDPBUazRyi2lTY2tovkt6bU5rc5NIPtbMLuG rPeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3RsGy5u87hD/nhFRXW245WG1KDBS3KV+HxtPLY745QY=; b=fPrhw0FVAaX7F/ZgOLXi0SMy30kAG6u+EjrT6jjwK0tDLfy5THL3mKPVzRVCd/ilaY jmExy9zM+R1UwlvySrXJvC3162yKvpLVCJEUmqmObOya8bU6LXkn2eBdcn6xAdTQaPEh +GkGTA3fhjYWL2HfheB5Sthh0brDAMhKYfKAdaMxdJMA/pun6DK/d+vrE9CtUjTeXCp/ zphuu0MJLJd25rCvUzXtScJEFlSpy6GHK+z1GmoRHw/IQuiwKw0v2VwUPCRRReXeHyK9 P7yPg813kdkSY/8MB0o3ubsDsk8tdboyo19puaJuaVtODBJDW3ozoBCoBkLjbg3FwMXI IXiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXykydMaagO47/q+HXrp66wj5cC1ENrxrB2I1WEWuh7Mx/Xv0tR UGzdQQzECzJqF5UT5UZ/I/xHjGk+wZqFKhAyX37xGfMg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7QCZXlQdjG/LG1PaBibucuOtlCp90FQ02p1VKiiF4fw3NnHUeP9vl6jiL4gKOHISbjYGofWRu7tEyZAwTNbM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8118:: with SMTP id d24mr1099506ljg.111.1573053284972; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 07:14:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: MARCELO GABRIEL BAGNULO BRAUN <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:14:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CACn7K3x_w+1u1VjhFAJME7h9zbRCH44U5vnaS4gYLc205qP-Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: iccrg IRTF list <iccrg@irtf.org>, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iccrg/CqSeGZepc3bIEevRjjA_fBi_Cac>
Subject: [iccrg] about draft-balasubramanian-iccrg-ledbatplusplus-01
X-BeenThere: iccrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of Internet Congestion Control Research Group \(ICCRG\)" <iccrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/iccrg>, <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iccrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:iccrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg>, <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:14:52 -0000

I think this version is much clearer than the previous one, thanks for that.
Some additional comments.

The document is proposed to be Informational. I wonder if it is not
more appropriate to make it experimental. I guess it depends what you
are after. If you merely want to document the microsoft
implementation, i guess informational makes sense, but if you wish it
to be a product of the RG, then probably you can go for experimental.
If you decide to go for informational, I guess you can drop the
RFC2119 terminology and the related paragraph.

Regarding sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, I think that the readability of
the mechanisms can be improved with some rearrangement. I mean, in
section 4.1 you use the GAIN, but the GAIN is not introduced until
section 4.2.
In section 4.2 you talk about the increase, but the actual increase
formula is presented in section 4.3 which talks about the decrease.
I would probably start by defining the GAIN, then presenting the slow
start, then the increase and then decrease.
Also, in the Slow start section, you refer to the ssthresh, but the
way this is computed is only presented in section 4.4. Probably it
would make sense to group all slow start (initial and periodic) in a
single section.

You probably should explicitly state the units in which the
expressions are expressed (in particular, the GAIN is added to the
window, I guess it is expressed in MSS).

I am missing from the draft the response to packet losses. I assume it
is the same a New Reno, but probably it is worth stating it.

Regards, marcelo

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid